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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrasonic toothbrush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article composed by reliable sources that does not mention the subject. (e.g. Human voice frequency has nothing to do with the brush) Mys_721tx (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The topic passes WP:N. Source examples include: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Its content is an interoperation of WP:PRIMARYs. I am not against the topic but the current article must be re-written. -Mys_721tx (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I understand your expressed concern to be that the currently cited sources don't sufficiently and directly relate to ultrasonic toothbrushes. I noted that two of the studies you deleted in this edit do mention ultrasonic toothbrushes in their titles; could you please explain the deletions of those 2 sources? Thanks, --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not carefully check the last two sources, and only thought they were the same as first two. I will restore those two.-Mys_721tx (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there is nothing unencyclopedic about this article to the point I wonder if there is a language barrier or possibly a mistake with the nomination and the nominator should just withdraw this. MicroPaLeo (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep-- topic seems notable. Deletion not a substitute for fixing the problems in an article. Agree work needed however. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2015 (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.