The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, default to keep. JIP | Talk 09:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
After listing the article for proposed deletion, I was messaged by the author, and have given the article this chance to have its merits debated. I see allowing an article on one individual product as setting a bad precedent for allowing anything commercial but non-notable on Wikipedia in future. Harr o 5 10:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete, and Userfy for now per creator's message. Bad precedent. Are all those pics legal?
Herostratus 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote, see below.
Firstly, all the pictures are legal. They have been donated by the company and also fall under the promotional material fair usage policy.
reply
I believe it is an important time capsule on the history of deep fryers. I have added a background section to clarify its importance. I can't prove 100% another automatic deep fryer existed before this one, however, if the article is maintained it doesn't stop another person disputing another one was in existence before this one. A patented was pending... as it states on one of the brochures, however, the patent application would have eventually be cancelled once the company ceased production of the deep fryers. Ashleyjoyce 06:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This innovation really should have its own class anyway, its not generic. It can't be class as a standard deep fryer that uses hand-held baskets or like the home deep fryers that use tongs to handle the fried food. Its a machine that automates the deep frying process. I was hoping that over time people might expand further on the topic of automated deep fryers. Is there any other like this being actively marketed?? Were other similar products ever sold prior to the 1970's etc. It adds some trivia to the field of deep frying. 210.8.99.100 07:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, default to keep. JIP | Talk 09:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
After listing the article for proposed deletion, I was messaged by the author, and have given the article this chance to have its merits debated. I see allowing an article on one individual product as setting a bad precedent for allowing anything commercial but non-notable on Wikipedia in future. Harr o 5 10:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete, and Userfy for now per creator's message. Bad precedent. Are all those pics legal?
Herostratus 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote, see below.
Firstly, all the pictures are legal. They have been donated by the company and also fall under the promotional material fair usage policy.
reply
I believe it is an important time capsule on the history of deep fryers. I have added a background section to clarify its importance. I can't prove 100% another automatic deep fryer existed before this one, however, if the article is maintained it doesn't stop another person disputing another one was in existence before this one. A patented was pending... as it states on one of the brochures, however, the patent application would have eventually be cancelled once the company ceased production of the deep fryers. Ashleyjoyce 06:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This innovation really should have its own class anyway, its not generic. It can't be class as a standard deep fryer that uses hand-held baskets or like the home deep fryers that use tongs to handle the fried food. Its a machine that automates the deep frying process. I was hoping that over time people might expand further on the topic of automated deep fryers. Is there any other like this being actively marketed?? Were other similar products ever sold prior to the 1970's etc. It adds some trivia to the field of deep frying. 210.8.99.100 07:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply