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) Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 12:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lumen metabolism tracker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Only routine and occasional (press-releases style) media coverage with no NCORP reliable sources. TealBass (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I had a look at the company's web page and thought it looked like a typical piece of quackery of the sort one sees all the time in TV advertisements for slimming methods. "Hear from the experts": three "experts", two of them "best-selling authors", none of them with any clear qualifications in physiology or biochemistry. Athel cb (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: I can find lots of routine product reviews, but there are a couple of in-depth sources on the product: [1], [2], as well as one small research study: [3]. Any product claiming to "hack your metabolism" pushes my bullshit needle into the red, but there does seem to be some coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm actually not opposed to keeping the article based on Outside and Slate, and I agree that perhaps a procedural keep is the best option here (the nomination seems... a little suspicious to be honest) but I do feel the need to point of that the BrandBlend section of Jerusalem Post is pretty much just advertising WeirdNAnnoyed. It's only blatantly obvious for the ones that are marked "PR" or "In collaboration with <brand>" or "Walla!", but while it's easier to miss the for the rest I would heavily caution against using similar articles as RS unless there is no other choice. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources identified, now and before, and also procedural keep as this article has just been kept. gidonb (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2024 (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.