Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squatty Potty


 * 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. A number of sources were presented, but these sources failed to convince other participants that they were of sufficient quality to meet WP:RS and WP:CORPDEPTH -- RoySmith (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Squatty Potty

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

pure advertisement for a not really notable product. The article's references seem to be about the promotional campaign for the product, and there is no need to do int further in an encyclopedia. (se in addition my comment at the Fringe Theory noticeboard  DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  04:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to be some coverage. Ad Week, The Daily Herald, Forbes India, & Business Insider. I would say that is enough to pass GNG. -- Darth Mike (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a source review. Concerns with promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article, some of which has already occurred after the nomination for deletion was performed (example diff, see the page's Revision history for more examples). North America1000 21:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable commercial promotion. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC).
 * How is the topic "non-notable"? It has received a great deal of significant coverage in reliable sources. North America1000 23:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources are based on churnalism following press releases. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC).
 * Are you sure about that? The coverage goes back for months. Could you provide any of the alleged press releases here to compare the articles to? The topic has received significant coverage in bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Note that the news articles do not appear to be press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves and on a few mirrors, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. North America1000 05:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course I can't produce press releases, as these are sent to the media organs. The way churnalism works is that the PR department of an entity (private or corporate) sends publicity material to chosen media to promote its interests. The journalists of that media then adapt the material (to a greater or lesser extent, sometimes not at all) to house style and publish it as their own work. The journalists get a publication to earn their bread, the corporations get the publicity they desire. This is often blatant in the case of trade journals, but exists in more exalted ones too. See Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett for a recent extreme case. Wikipedia should not allow itself to be conned by corporate PR flack. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC).


 * Delete because there is big part of promotional advertising here that we can't ignore or simply blindly defend, see my examples for instance: the first Adweek is actually a compilation of advertising in general so this can't satisfy WP:CORP which says and this perfectly applies to the sources. The second source here in the AfD is actually a personal blog by someone's personal views, so it can't be used. The Forbes is a person's own blog so it cannot be used for significant coverage or notability, and the link actually says in its opening: Seven strategies a content marketing beginner should learn....these tips and assessing them so it WP:Not guide perfectly applies. The last one, Business Insider, is simply a general report about firing a paid sponsor, and this wouldn't be "significant coverage". A quick summary of the current article's sources showed the same: Adweek, Salt Lake Tribune, Inc. and then actually a local TV station (#source 11, WFTS) which since GNG is linked above, would not be "significant coverage" either and GNG itself clearly notes "this is not a guarantee of an article"). When the coverage is so thin, it resorts to using local TV news or service trade publications, it's only a reality of how extensive the PR is especially when it starts to become obvious this article is a means of webhosted promotion. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 20:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There are more than two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Here's two - A Book: The Art of Change Leadership and this book: How to Be a Poop Detective: The Squatty Potty Edition. And there's a lot more out there too. -- HighKing ++ 18:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Such as which ones, which ones that weren't still influenced or tied to the company and what policy basis? GNG says "independent reliable sources" and my analysis given noticed it was only a business guide. SwisterTwister   talk  22:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as I examined the sources above and they have the clear highlights and the second is a "how-to" thus violating WP:Not a how-to, and GNG itself says that content must satisfy WP:Not. This also considering when I add to the analysis offered above,, The Squatty Potty is essentially a step stool, costing between $24.99 (for white plastic) and $74.99 (for the bamboo version), that slides against the base of a toilet and . The nomination here is based in our policies and none of the Keeps have successfully refuted why such policies should be bypassed.  SwisterTwister   talk  22:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi, totally incorrect, WP:NOT doesn't apply to sources and reviews and how-to guides are perfectly acceptable so long as they meet the criteria for establishing notability and are reliable secondary sources. I checked the acknowledgements of both books and they do not acknowledge any input from the company. Also, the Mens Health reference (below) also meets the criteria. -- HighKing ++ 10:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just commenting, since I created the article (I disclosed that I was paid to do so on the talk page). There are some good references: Bloomberg, Washington Post, NPR, Men's Health, CNBC. The page averages over 400 views/day for the past 3 months so it seems there is general interest. Plus its creators were on Shark Tank.--Bernie44 (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , looking at your references with an eye on the criteria for establishing notability (mostly WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND), the Bloomberg article, the Washington Post article, the NPR article and the CNBC article all fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as they rely on company sources/quotations for facts and info (therefore PRIMARY source) - classic churnalism. The Mens Health article is a good reference though. -- HighKing ++ 10:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to get off track, but how would those refs not satisfy requirements of depth and independence? The Post ref, for instance, is a profile on the company. It quotes the founder of the company, and also quotes two gastroenterologists. The CNBC article goes through the company history and how it became successful. It doesn't seem to be a regurgitation of a press release or anything like that.--Bernie44 (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Briefly then. GNG states "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. This is further explained in both WP:CORPDEPTH which excludes reliable sources relying on "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" and WP:ORGIND is pretty self-explanatory. So the CNBC article is classic churnalism and normally (when talking about a company or a product) follows a formula of "problem -> inspired moment -> solution -> benefits -> funding". All of the information and data in the article has "originated" from the company complete with company-authorised quotes, company-authorised photos, company-authorised financial figures, company-authorised "benefits" .. you get the picture. There isn't a single opinion or thought expressed in the entire article that hasn't originated from the company. (Disclaimer: Once you see articles in this manner you can never stop seeing - they're everywhere)  -- HighKing ++ 17:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources listed do not read like they're independent of the company; textbook churnalism. I am not surprised that this was paid to be written on Wikipedia. Valeince (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. References located don't satsify our criteria for depth and independence and therefore cannot be used to support the claim that the subject passes GNG. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2017 (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.