Talk:SousVide Supreme

Removed a bunch of copied junk
...this whole article reads like it was written by the "inventors" of this device, or was paid editing. Not that that's necessarily bad, but when the only refs are to the company's own website, that kinda says something. Removed a bunch of stuff that was simply copied and pasted from that site, and tagged a bunch of other stuff. I'm not sure this device is even notable for a Wikipedia entry, unless we're going to decree that every random appliance that you can buy online is notable. Blatant ad spam. :( – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 04:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree that this article doesn't add real content that couldn't be wrapped into the Sous-vide page. Propose merger. Geoff (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed even more! --Stefan talk 01:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that SousVide Supreme be merged into Sous-vide. I think that the content in the SousVide Supreme article can easily be explained in the context of Sous-vide, and the Sous-Vide article is of a reasonable size that the merging of SousVide Supreme will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Geoff (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't merge I'm against merging into Sous-vide because then that article will have (much) more info about the product, what is in the sous vide page now is good, but we should not have much more info about the product, that would not good for that page. It should be about the term, not the product. Then maybe the proposers issue is that this page is bad, I agree, should we even have a article about SousVide Supreme? I'm pretty sure it is notable, but lets solve the issue about this page, not moving the problem to another page. So I suggest to clean up this page instead. --Stefan talk 01:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Not much action here, I will take away the merge tag, anyone want to reopen please do and put a note here. --Stefan talk 00:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)