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 speedy keep. I withdraw this nomination. (non-admin closure) --Biblioworm 19:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thermomix[edit]

Thermomix (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)

No sources, almost certainly non-notable, and borderline promotional. Biblioworm 22:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This from Australia's leading consumer advocacy group.
  • This about the launch of a new version.
  • This about the award they got for the way they launched it.
  • This about the same thing.
At the moment, the vast majority of the "news" coverage is focused on that recent "scandal" but there are plenty of reviews and whole independent cookbooks dedicated to cooking with this device alone. Nom is not wrong about the article, though - needs a lot of work. Stlwart111 23:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 14 November 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.