Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IChill

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. slakr^\ talk / 06:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IChill

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable product. Only references given are to the manufactuer's own site, press releases, or content unrelated to this product. As the original version of this article stated, it is one of 350 products just like it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant information is provided, as well as a link to the FDA regarding dietary supplements. You claim that it is not notable because there are 350 other relaxation "drinks", but iChill claims to be the worlds first relaxation "shot". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradas (talk • contribs) 19:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which makes the product notable because it's small? Or because the manufacturer says it's notable? The article is factual and non-promotional, granted, but the product is still non-notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no credible claim to notability. If the claim that they were the world's first "relaxation shot" has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the company there may be a case for notability, but such coverage doesn't seem to exist. --bonadea contributions talk 19:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to the page have been made. It is a notable product featured on many prominent television programs, and it has nationally televised commercials. Being the world's first relaxation shot is a very important factor. Keep in mind the product is only two years old, and I think the amount of coverage and awareness it has received in such time accredits to the viability of the page. Check out youtube.com and see for yourself how much coverage that iChill has received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradas (talk • contribs) 20:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I think there is just about enough coverage in independent sources to pass the notability test. Besides the links in the article ([1],[2]) I found these two in reliable sources: [3],[4] Robofish (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend against deletion of this article.

I use Wikipedia as my prime information source, regardless of subject, as I suspect is becoming standard for a rapidly increasing number of people. When I saw this product "Ichill" on one billboard on a highway in the metroplex it is made in it was my first exposure to it. At next opportunity I consulted Wiki. The article was not lengthy but was somewhat informative - I would have classified it a "stub", mainly as it lacked even a proposition as to method of function. It did not contain anything obviously inaccurate, misleading, offensive or unbalanced. This alone made it a useful source for increasing my information on this product. Increasing available information through a communal but disputable open source approach is Wikipedia's vision, and this stub-like article accomplished this. Frankly I do not understand the objections to it - the salient one of there being 350 relaxation drinks was completely new information to me before consulting Wikipedia on this one, also tangentially increasing my knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WayneLBurnham (talk • contribs) 12:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC) — WayneLBurnham (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - I watched the clips from the View and GMA. The View never said their name - they were on camera along with several other similar drinks. GMA mentioned them in passing along with many other similar drinks. The few sources I see (above and in the article) aren't enough IMO to convey notability. Mention in passing is most of this drink's coverage. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 18:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Transity. I watched the clips, and checked out the references, and they don't seem to be enough to establish the notability of the product. Those that mention it in detail are not third-party, and those that are third-party don't give significant coverage. - Sudo Ghost 23:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the is a serious lack of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources to warrant inclusion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - iChill was recently featured in a segment on MSNBC. The segment may be controversial, but it still adds to the already acceptable (and growing) amount of coverage on iChill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.191.2 (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you've missed this AfD discussion, the "acceptable" among of coverage doesn't establish the notability of the article. That your only editing on Wikipedia has been to add this product to various articles and to vote to keep the article should be taken into consideration for the reviewing admin. - Sudo Ghost 22:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.