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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Essentia[edit]

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

Contested prod partially restored via WP:REFUND. This is supposedly the less spammy version, but I don't care for this one either. The only sentence I see that might show notability were it well sourced is, "Essentia is the first company in the world to create an "All-Natural sleeping surface".[3]" which amazingly is both meaningless (all-natural is just a marketing term with no well-defined meaning) and obviously false (what did people sleep on before unnatural chemicals and plastics? straw? feathers? dirt?).

I searched Google, but was unable to find any reliable, independent coverage upon which to base a decent article. Kilopi (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete -- Great coverage but missing information from sources. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Current article is unambiguous advertising: among the leaders of the healthy sleep movement. Google News for Essentia + mattress finds mostly routine announcements, PR sites, and litigation reports.[1] - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:31, 28 November 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.