Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic Bullet (appliance)

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 keep. Bucketsofg 03:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magic Bullet (appliance)

Magic Bullet (appliance) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is about a product and an infomercial that is not notable: WP:CORP. The article itself seems to be a joke, treating the infomercial as if it were a major motion picture; plot summary, characters, etc. FUNNY but WP:NOT. This kind of article belongs in uncyclopedia. No assertion of notability is made, and the only references provided or mentioned are the informercial and the product website. Seems to almost encroach WP:SPAM, but this is not my basis for this nomination. Delete. Jerry lavoie 02:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unverified, ad-like article of a non-notable product.--TBCΦtalk? 02:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, seems plenty of published, vetted reviews are in the wild and there is enough material to make an unbiased article. See these links:[1] [2] [3]. Article is also much more tolerable after a section was deleted. Passes WP:CORP. hateless 04:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per non-trivial sources (including multiple product reviews!) provided by hateless. -- Black Falcon 04:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not relevant, reads like an ad and fails WP:CORP.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 13:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not seeing how this fails WP:CORP. It's got the multiple, non-trivial sources that hateless found (which probably should be added in), and if that's an ad for the product, someone really needs to fire their marketing department. --UsaSatsui 16:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Oh come now AfD is not clean up. This product is notable if the article reads like a ad clean the article up. Whispering
• Keep Topic is notable. Just about everyone has seen parts of the magic bullet infomercial. The information is in many istances more widely recognized than the product.Pdelongchamp 19:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Update: Still Keep. I've cleaned it up and included more references. It's a notable topic, no point in deleting it when it's only going to reappear in an even more primitive form. It can be easily cleaned up. I've already cleaned it up a lot.Pdelongchamp 19:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep and lordy, someone take some time to clean this thing up - it really doesn't need a full description of the infomercial, complete with cast of characters and trivia (!). Weak because of the sources hateless provided above, I'm only comfortable with one - the Stuff magazine review. The others read like promo pieces. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment (by nom) C'mon, are you guys kidding me??? The Stuff source??? See that |--BUY IT--| button under the picture? It is an advertisement. Catalog descriptions and statements by companies trying the sell the thing do not count as sources, guys! Otherwise we would be reproducing every catalog out there. PUH-LEEEZE! Jerry lavoie 23:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Stuff magazine isn't a catalog. It's an independent source. Just because they have a "buy it" button doesn't make it any less of one, it just means they have a cross-marketing deal with Amazon (and the button doesn't even work). I've give you the other two sources as not RS, the second one isn't written by anyone reputable, and the third is just...blugh. There's more sources out there, though, for one thing, I saw a write-up of this product in Reader's Digest. --UsaSatsui 02:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • as for the second source, it's self-description is "Associated Content, an online community of highly-engaged, quality content producers, provides an ideal environment for advertisers who are ready to tap into the benefits user-generated content advertising." This is not a reliable source, either. Jerry lavoie 00:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • and the third one, LASplash, is a e-zine that only has reviews of new products. All reviews read like copies of the product website for the manufacturer. Unlike consumer reports, none of the product reviews do critical comparisons, and none appear to be NPOV. The site does not have any statement of objectivity or any claim that their content is not influenced by paid advertising. I do not regard this as a reliable source. Jerry lavoie 00:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
      • If you still want more sources, then here you go, including some news articles that are clearly not advertising: [4] [5] [6]. Also, I want to note that just because there's a Buy Now link at the bottom of a review it doesn't mean it's not an independent review--a separation between advertising and editorial is the typical norm within publications and both have jurisdiction over the same page. Look up your typical negative review on CNET and see if you can find shills on the page. hateless 06:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Let us not confuse being mentioned in an article with being the subject of the article. There is a big difference. In the first of 3 new sourced you provide, DMNEWS, the article is about Unfair Trade Practices. The person interviewed happens to be the maker of the product, and it is mentioned. This is a TRIVIAL reference. It does not provide encyclopedic content that can be added to an article about the product. Jerry lavoie 04:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
          • The article is about cheap knockoffs as directly related to the appliance. It is thus non-trivial. Is an article about Tony Blair's role in the Iraq War a trivial reference to Tony Blair? -- Black Falcon 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
        • The second article source you provided above is seemingly a reprint of the first. The article provided content that could very easily and appropriately be used in an article about unfair trade parctices and product counterfeiting. It does not provide a source of notability for this particular product. Jerry lavoie 04:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
          • The article is about cheap knockoffs as directly related to the appliance. Also, it is not a reprint of the first. The subject is the same, but the content and text are different. It is thus non-trivial. There are many articles about the 2008 US presidential election and many include much of the same information--this does not mean they're reprints to be discarded. -- Black Falcon 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
          • The first article plainly states, in the first paragraph, that the product sold (1) 7 million units (in 3 years), (2) generated $300 million in sales (in three years), (3) was entirely marketed via infomercial marketing, and (4) stated who the marketers were. That is not trivial information, this is essential information. Your standards are quite impossible if this constitutes trivia. hateless 18:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
        • When I see a magazine review (or "rave" as your third source above calls it) that appears to use the same language as company-produced advertising, then what I look for to determine if they are a valid source is a statement on the website about neutrality or responsibility for content. If the company states that they are not responsible for the content of the reviews as the content is provided by paying contributors, then it is clearly POV. In the case of the third source above, these areas of the website seem to require a subscription. I can not access any of the website pages which have "premium" in the first part of the URL. My guess, based on the tone of the ad-like "rave", is that it is a paid product placement, and so I would not consider ti a valid source. So we are still at NO SOURCES status for this article, as far as I can tell. Jerry lavoie 04:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Definitely needs rewrite _SUBWAYguy 00:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SPAM. It is the quintessential advertisement masquerading as an article. - WeniWidiWiki 05:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree here, that N for the machine means referred to by the world in general as something distinctive under this name,not being calledthis in any number of catalogs and advertisements by the producer and its publicity firms. DGG 02:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I actually have one but I really don't think everything that has an informercial is worth advertising any more. Usedup 20:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per multiple sources cited above, the product is notable enough to be included. Yamaguchi先生 02:41, 22 February 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.