Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IChill Relaxation Shot

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. Cirt (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IChill Relaxation Shot

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonnotable energy drink product -- mentioned in passing in a couple of news articles, but nothing here that really indicates any notability. Prod tag removed w/o explanation. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable b/c one of first relaxation products introduced in 2 oz shot form, early market entrant Njmaki (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being one of the first relaxation products in such a form does not necessarily make it notable. Notability depends on whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm going to have to go with ~~keep~~ weak keep, though, after seeing the sources linked in the article (this is significant coverage), in addition to this one that I found. Timmeh (review me) 00:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of those appear to be press releases, not independent news coverage. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right about the second one. It does seem like a press release. The first isn't a press release, though. The quote, "the company claims that..." shows it's independent. I'll change my argument to be weakly in favor of keeping the article; I still think the subject is notable enough for one, though. Timmeh (review me) 21:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article has been updated several times since being marked for deletion & how includes more significant references, notably the Washington Post & ABC news. Please help this article by canceling its deletion request and increasing its depth & objectivity.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Obligatory pessimal vote here. =) I see one link that talks about the product, and there's the link to the Good Morning America video, which I unfortunately can't watch due to system restrictions. Beyond that, you have a press release, and a passing mention in an article about Drank, where the brand iChill only appears exactly one time in a passing mention. The GMA vid and the link as posted by Timmeh, however, might be its salvation. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It reads as advertorial and the sources are lacking. Add to that the fact that it's the work of a WP:SPA and I write it off as an attempt at promotion, not a valid attempt to build an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 08:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ADVERTISING right here WngLdr34 (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References in article do not establish notability and not every consumer product is inherently notable. Unless someone uses a can of this stuff to commit a political assassination, there is little need of an article. Ben Kidwell (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.