Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trongs (2nd nomination)

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. czar 00:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trongs

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

Non-notable product. The first AfD, seven years ago, was to keep, but hopefully our standards have improved since then. I can't see the two Chicago Trib articles cited (they're behind a paywall), but the description in the first AfD of those articles makes it sound like they wouldn't support WP:N, and I can't find any other WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm finding mentions such as this one from 2014 in Metro UK and a similar one on a Daily Mirror website. The Mirror has been determined to be a non-reliable source. I question whether the Metro UK post is any better as a source because its article reads like a press release/"puff piece."For that matter, the Metro UK post reads about the same. Elsewhere I find a number of blog posts and a passing mention in a Huffington Post article about a competing product from South Korea. There are insufficient mentions in relable sources so this article fails WP:GNG. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply not notable. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 1 July 2017 (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.