Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masha (product)


 * 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Masha (product)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable product. Through various searches, I've found nothing but the usual social media pages and the website selling the product. Created by a COI/spa account (with the same name as the website) and an IP (which traces to the trademark owners city), this "article" is an advert for a non-notable product. Sum mer PhD (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Notable product. The Masha (product) is a notable product due to its eligibility for and attainment of patent protection, its commercial availability, and the fact that it is mechanically distinguishable from every other kitchen appliance, see, e.g., Mixer or Blender. Other than the identity of the product's U.S. distributor, the current article does not contain any advert information. Reference to the product's U.S. distributor website is appropriate for explanatory purposes. NexGenStore 22:48, 3 April 2013
 * Comment - You may feel that your product is "notable". However, Wikipedia's definition of notability primarily depends on the existence of substantial coverage in reliable sources. There is no indication that such sources exist. If you are aware of such coverage for your product, please provide it here and/or on the article's talk page. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The blog you just added is not a reliable source either. Please see WP:SPS. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Please note the text of the referenced patent, which cites the product's legal novelty and distinctions from products in the kitchen appliance space. The fact that the product is new and only recently being reviewed by authors of secondary and tertiary sources does not in itself negate its notability.  It is the author's position that the article should have reasonable time to be edited with the benefit of such forthcoming secondary and tertiary sources without prior deletion. NexGenStore 22:35, 5 April 2013
 * "Legal novelty" does not establish notability. A product is notable "if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." Please see Notability_(organizations_and_companies). - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Please note that the article's creator has apparently forgotten to log in several times. Nexgenstore, 75.15.205.87 and 12.217.50.1 are, AFAICT, the same conflicted single purpose editor. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Please note that the prior failure to login was inadvertent, and the above comments contained the author's signature. The conflict of interest is acknowledged, the author of the article has attempted to ensure that there is not any unconfirmable information contained in the article, and third party contributions to the article are invited in accordance with applicable guidelines.  NexGenStore 22:35, 5 April 2013


 * SummerPhD, please remove the aforementioned IP address references, as there is proper attribution contained in the author's comments. NexGenStore 22:35, 5 April 2013


 * Delete - It certainly looks like an interesting kitchen appliance. However, it has not received singificant coverage independent reliable sources to establish that a Wikipedia article is warranted.  -- Whpq (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. J04n(talk page) 23:45, 10 April 2013 (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.