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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poo-Pourri[edit]

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

Long-time orphan, long-time no references, appears to be largely promotional, there is barely a page on Febreze, let alone a minor air freshening product. Spicyitalianmeatball (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. Francl (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable product at this time. Google News found this newspaper blog that would provide nothing for Wikipedia. Google News archives also found nothing significant for Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I would like to hear more about whether there are reliable sources available that would prove the subject passes the general notability guideline. This is addressed in SwisterTwister's comment, but not in the nomination or in Francl's comment. It might also be worth seeing if there is a company article or another broader-scope article that this can be merged into, per the notability guidelines for products. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's quite a bit of press coverage though most of the articles are quite short[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] or pay-to-view[9][10]. There's also a bit of coverage of Karoma including this substantial article[11]. Merging into a company-article might be better as I'm not quite sure if the Poo-Pourri articles constitute substantial coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I wouldn't disagree with a merge but there hasn't been any evidence that the product is owned by a company but rather by Suzy Batiz. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Certainly an article fully meeting WP:V can be constructed here with available sourcing. As to whether that meets WP:GNG is a subjective question and the prospects are borderline at best, and its certainly no Committee to End Pay Toilets in America, but it would be a shame to flush this.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, reads like an ad. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The whole article is based on a single, primary source, and isn't particularly encylopaedic either. The brand's notability is very dubious, with a quick look on a search engine producing little other than pages from the company itself and blog posts.--Donkey1989 - talk 22:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2012 (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.