Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zantrex

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, though not resoundingly so. Kubigula (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zantrex

Zantrex (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unlike other diet pill entries, such as Relacore, Leptoprin, Cortislim and Trimspa - all of whom have received media coverage (abeit negative) for Federal Trade Commission rulings, this article does not establish notability other than being a brand of diet pill. The information used to assert notability is unsourced, or is simply marketing that was used by the manufacturer itself about its own product. Much of the information currently in the article is original research, and what information is sourced is attributed to a third party retailer^[1] - not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. As there is already an entry for Basic Research, the company purported to market this brand, any verfiable material on this page should be included as a subsection on that article. Quartet 20:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. There's some coverage to be found on this one, although it's mostly the company suing other companies. --Smashville^BONK! 22:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - There is enough news interest in the drug for it to be notable. Being sued (New York Times - Jul 6, 2003), Headline drug in an article about diet pill safety (BusinessWeek - Jan 25, 2006), sueing ( PR Newswire - ECNext - Jun 30, 2003 Press release), Britney Spears getting in the news associated with the drug (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel- Oct 10, 2003 and others), at least 5 useful google scholar hits. Although the article is a mess, it certainly seems notable enough - Peripitus (Talk) 07:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not signficant enough third party reliable sources independant of the subject to warrant (or create) an encyclopedia entry (WP:NN). Most of the verifiable information on this product seems to be weaker tie-ins with parent company (it's, for the most part, referenced after the words "makers of", "manufacturer of" during reports of lawsuits by or against the parent company, Basic Research or in other trivial media). Are we're going to give this product an advertisement (article) because a bottle of Zantrex-3 fell out of Britney Spears' purse in 2003? Notability is not the same as fame or popularity. --Komrade Kiev 14:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. As stated by Peripitus, there does seem to be some useful information about the product, but it seems more related to the company than the product. I do not feel there is significant enough coverage as established by WP:N to have its own article. I do feel that all verifiable information could be added to the parent article, though. SorryGuy 20:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The Business Week article is a non-trivial mention. This is probably the most notable OTC diet supplement available right now. Caknuck (talk) 00:26, 23 November 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.