Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquapod (bottle)

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Tawker (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aquapod_(bottle)

Aquapod_(bottle) (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)

This Article seems to be about a form factor of packaging used by nestle for water and juices. The specific item seems to be a short stubby plastic bottle. I don't see anything remarkable about the bottle deserving notoriety. nor has it gained much from what i am aware. Not aware of anyone going to a store and asking for the bottle based on its shape over other shapes. Aside from that article seems to exist in the food space and is a blatant advertisement and seems to have an incorrect opening sentence to boot. Since its marketed under different brands, its not a water product on its own. Philosopher kat (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more reason ,Its actually not even advertized on the web-link provided ( http://www.polandspring.com/#/products/our_products).Philosopher kat (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Seems to be just another brand name. I found some passing references about marketing to kids in the bottled water political advocacy material but not enough to justify an article. Note that the topic is heavily masked by a science toy of the same name that launches soda bottle rockets. Mangoe (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2014 (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.