Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designer Whey Protein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Designer Whey Protein

Designer Whey Protein (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

"Advertisement masquerading as an article". The "article" does not establish notability other than it being a brand of whey protein, and the information used to asert notability is unsourced, or is simply an advertising slogan used by the manufacturer itself about it's own product. This advertisment has two product images - one that is only weakly related to the main article topic; and two corporate links - to a company that does not have a Wikipedia article. Much of the information is original research, and what information is sourced is attributed to the companies own (self-published) website - not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. In fact there is not a single reliable source quoted in this article at all. Note that no other brand of whey protein has it's own Wikipedia entry - despite there being about 40 other brands on the market. The non-corporate links that have been included in this advertisement are general whey protein links and can be transferred over to the main whey protein article once it's deleted. Quartet 04:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's borderline spam. YechielMan 06:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. --RaiderAspect 10:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Like I tried to explain to the single purpose account sockpuppet who started this afd (see his user page and edit history) the current version of the article was arrived at after a long discussion. It previously appeared like this:[1] (That version was written almost entirely by myself, so there is no bias here) But in order to become neutral we changed it and moved a critique of biological value to the biological value article. Here's some sources to establish notability:[2][3][4] A google search of "Designer Whey Protein" yields 106,000 results so I can find more. See the talk page this version of the article was thought out in much more detail than it would appear. Although some more detail would be useful, I'll add some in the coming days. Quadzilla99 13:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If you have sources for the article they belong there, and not here on the AfD. That said, those sources still are not reliable secondary sources. One of them is an advertisement, the other two appear to be press releases written by the company itself. The one reference actually in the article is culled from the company's website and while informational does not satify WP:ATT. You may have done a good job in eliminating some of the POV issues that plagued the article's early incarnations but the problem is that it still reads like an advert and lacks reliable attribution. Unfortunately it does not meet inclusion criteria and I have to say delete it. Arkyan 16:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - After much consideration, I think this information should be used in a article on NEXT Proteins - the company that manufactures this product (see Twinlab, MuscleTech or EAS). I've worked on this article in the past, but in all honesty, I'd be hard-pressed to tell a new editor why this article even exists other than to plug a product that is not really unique or notable in any way - as most of the notability comes from the fact that it contains whey protein. I'd also b hard-pressed to provide any verifiable information on this product outside of the manufacturers or distributors own website (the links provided above look like press releases by the NEXT Proteins) Yankees76 16:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No non-trivial independent external sources primarily about this product. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is already an article about whey protein. There isn't any need to have a separate article about one specific brand, and this Designer Whey article doesn't add or enhance the information already in the whey protein article. I use Designer Whey myself and like it, but it's hard for me to justify this article's existence. -Amatulic 20:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Regardless of whether Quartet is new (and whether this is a secondary is left as an exercise - see my own user page for an example of what this may be), s/he is right, this article is kind of spammy. --Dennisthe2 22:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Better used in an article about the company, otherwise non-notable and, as Dennisthe2 said, kind of "spammy." (I like that word.) Realkyhick 23:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I dealt with a disruptive sockpuppeteer during a content dispute at this article in October 2006. At that time it had some encyclopedic information about the nutritional profile. Now all that information (the subject of the content dispute) is gone, and I see nothing else worth saving—it's just an ad now. --Ginkgo100talk 01:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Borderline spam. DaveApter 13:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.