Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brolico


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Brolico

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page is clearly promotional material for an unnotable product. The product itself is not covered in enough WP:RSes to be notable. The page itself has a number of things copied from the promotional materials of the company. It doesn't meet WP:Notable, it's guilty of WP:Advert and WP:POV. It should be deleted. Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 23:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article was significantly more promotional when it was first created (I noticed it and intended to AfD it then, but forgot). This version was prodded as advertising; it was then substantially toned down by another editor, which is appreciated but still insufficient. Product is not notable; I can find zero independent coverage of the subject. The product's health claims are, of course, complete bollocks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * At the time I PROD'ed it, it was easily just advertising and full of unsourced claims, but given all the improvements I'm going to stay neutral on this deletion as it has been rewritten in an encyclopaedic tone and does have two, possibly good sources, but I can't verify them as they are offline. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong delete JSTOR has never seen the term, not once, which leads me to believe that the reference to Science does not mention the subject by name. Given the high standards of WP:MEDRS and the use of this purported substance toward medical use, I think we have to ask for something that can be verified. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:46, 14 April 2015 (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.