Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Saver bottle


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Life Saver bottle

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable product Pjacobi (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note If I'm not mistaken contaminated water is the #1 killer of children in the world. Could we pull in some experts to see if this is notable or not.  This isn't the sort of product that is going to be well known by people who participate in AFD discussions  I'm listing on Talk:Water pollution if anyone knows of a better place to pull in people who know whether this is notable or not please link off.  jbolden1517Talk  16:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There seem to be a number of articles about the product. The biggest is here: "'Lifesaver' Bottle Purifies Water in Seconds" at Foxnews.com. This source does not appear to be a blog, and might count as well: "LIFESAVER: World’s First Ultra Filtration Water Bottle" at Inhabitat.com. Also, the article appears misnamed - it should be at Lifesaver bottle based on the manufacturer's spelling.   Will Beback    talk    16:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I just added a lot of that info to the article.Grundle2600 (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability isn't related to whether or not something is important or not, plenty of completely unimportant people and things are notable and a few important people and things are not notable. This is notable because there is significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources.  Drawn Some (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Where? The linked Daily Telegraph article? Or the website the company that sells this product: Lifesaver Bottle USA? Splette :) How's my driving? 20:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Note this also needs to be moved to "Lifesaver bottle" if the result of the AfD is keep. Drawn Some (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Reliable and verifiable sources in the article establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Without even reading the article, I know that it is well sourced because I wrote it! Grundle2600 (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One link to a tabloid Daily Telegraph and another to Treehugger makes this article 'well sourced'? Splette :) How's my driving? 20:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference is The Daily Telegraph, not The Daily Mail. The former is a respectable broadsheet newspaper, not a tabloid. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ups, sorry I mixed up the two. Splette :) How's my driving? 21:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Its written like an advertisment for a product. Non-notable, "life saver bottle" gives only 1550 google hits (10.000 for "lifesaver bottle"). I would vote for keep if this article was not about the single product of a certain company but instead about a certain design/concept of bottles to purify water. Splette :) How's my driving? 20:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If the technology is under patent, then maybe that's why only one company is producing it. I did not mean to make the article seem like an advertisement. I have nothing to do with the subject, or with the person who invented it. I just like science. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Only two references, one of which is a blog that references the other, but more sources are available. Needs cleanup, but it does seem to meet the requirements of notability. Recommend moving this to Lifesaver bottle and fixing the redirect once AfD process is complete. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you put this in quotation marks it gives only 22 results. Is that notable? Remember, notability includes significant coverage and notability is not temporary... Splette :) How's my driving? 21:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Scjessey's link pulled up Jane's about as RS as this product could get. Can we close WP:SNOW?   jbolden1517Talk  21:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non notable product, I agree with Splette. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge into Water purification and/or Water filter .--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Clarification: My main problem about the article is that it is product-based, not technology-based and concentrates on the (successful) marketing efforts of one manufactur. While the company has convinced the patent office, that their device is a specific novel combination of features, nothing in its components is even mildly new. Ultrafiltre membranes to remove molecules above a specific size (including viruses) are a mainstream technology. Think of the dying children! is not valid argument, and if you want to think of the dying children, then you should ask yourself, where patent-grabbers are in the equation of rescuing them. --Pjacobi (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said - I agree. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - the fact this this article is product-based does not preclude the creation of a technology-bassed article. Based on guidelines, this product is notable with coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject.  Specifically, Fox News, Guardian, Toronto Star, Janes, and BBC.  And these are not the only ones but certainly is more than enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2009 (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.