Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burst Oral Care

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 no consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burst Oral Care (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Promo piece created by a single-purpose IP editor. The references aren't what they seem: the Forbes articles are from the 'sites' section (= not RS), the Chicago Tribune one was written by a product review publication, the CNN one is similar, the Bizjournals piece is mostly about the GS-led investment round, and the Dental Tribune 'article' is a product launch announcement straight from the company's marketing department. The closest thing to RS is the Wired article, but that's about the product category, and mentions Burst only alongside many other brands.

As for the two awards, the Stevies are of dubious notability, to put it mildly, and the London Design Award went to the branding agency for creating the brand image and packaging etc., not to Burst per se.

I don't think any of that adds up to either WP:GNG or WP:CORP notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Kern, Miller (2020-01-29). "How to select the right electric toothbrush subscription for you". Mashable. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.

     Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:

     "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

     The guideline notes that "significant coverage" "does not need to be the main topic of the source material".

     This article contains a 276-word review of Burst (and also discusses other electric toothbrushes).

     The review notes: "The Good: Lifetime warranty, Three brushing modes, Nice design. The Bad: On the more expensive side, Small brush head. The Bottom Line: Burst does a good job, and the brand stands behind its product with a lifetime warranty that replaces broken brushes for subscribers."

  2. Varghese, Daniel (2020-08-21). "The 10 Best Electric Toothbrushes in 2020". GQ. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.

     The review contains a 476-word review of Burst (and also discusses other electric toothbrushes).

     The review contains negative coverage of Burst:

     The Burst is a bit pricier than some of the other subscription-based toothbrushes we considered. ... One thing about the Burst does give us slight pause: it’s “charcoal infused” bristles. Burst and many companies that make charcoal infused toothpaste claim that charcoal gives the toothbrush additional whitening capabilities. As dentists quoted in a report in Scienceline pointed out “there’s simply not enough evidence to back the promises made for using charcoal for oral hygiene.” This isn’t because all dentists are convinced brushing with charcoal is bad, it’s rather that there hasn’t been enough research done into the topic.

  3. Reid, Hilary (2019-06-28). "I Tested Six New 'Start-up' Electric Toothbrushes". New York. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.

     The review contains a 318-word review of Burst (and also discusses other electric toothbrushes).

     The review contains analysis of Burst:

     Another really ticklish toothbrush! But slightly less ticklish than the Boka, despite its higher rate of vibrations per minute. The vibrations on the sensitive setting were a bit less intense, and I’m not sure if the massage setting really felt that different from the whitening one. That said, I did think my teeth looked a little lighter after brushing, so it seemed that the whitening setting was somewhat effective. I also liked that it has a light that flashes red when the toothbrush is running low on charge — my old electric toothbrushes would always get slower and slower as the charge died, and it’s great that this one gives you a heads-up.

  4. Warner, Alex (2020-06-17). "The Internet's Most Reviewed Electric Toothbrush Is the Secret to Chrissy Teigen's Bright Smile". People. Archived from the original on 2020-06-22. Retrieved 2021-01-04.

     The review notes: "So, what makes the Burst Sonic Toothbrush so special? Thanks to the brand’s sonic technology, it has one of the most powerful motors in the industry. The brush gives off 33,000 vibrations per minute, allowing it to better clean hard-to-reach areas and deeply polish your teeth without irritating your gums."

  5. Burke, Owen (2020-05-27). "I tried the Burst toothbrush made popular by the viral 'corn test' video — here's how it stacked up against my Philips Sonicare". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.

     The author provides analysis: "Burst is a more affordable alternative that ultimately gives me the same clean feeling as my Sonicare at a much better value, and I don't have to remember to go out and buy or change brush heads, which, for a forgetful fool such as I, is a huge relief."

  6. Goode, Lauren (2020-01-24). "Don't Brush Off Mouth Tech As a Passing Fad". Wired. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.

     The article spends 12 paragraphs to discuss Burst. It discusses the company: "Burst Oral Care was founded in 2017 as a way to “fuse together the offline and the online” personal care market, according to cofounders Brittany Stewart and Hamish Khayat. ... Burst is a DTC company—that’s direct-to-consumer, similar to how makeup company Glossier and luggage company Away are eschewing traditional retail channels and selling their stuff through their own websites."

     It also discusses the product: "Burst’s latest oral care product, the one the company shipped to me, is floss. This is not just any floss. It’s expanding, charcoal-coated, mint-and-eucalyptus flavored, antimicrobial floss."

  7. Ha, Anthony (2020-05-06). "Goldman Sachs backs electric toothbrush startup Burst Oral Care". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
  8. Chen, I-Chun (2020-05-06). "Burst Oral Care gets more funding in round led by Goldman Sachs". L.A. Biz. American City Business Journals. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Burst to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the sources are about the Burst product and brand instead of about the company, so I would support reframing the article to be about the brand instead of the company.

  Burst is the main subject of articles in People and Business Insider. Burst has received substantial coverage in articles in GQ (476-word review), New York (318-word review), and Mashable (276-word review) that also discuss other electric toothbrushes. These sources can still be used to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which notes that "significant coverage" "does not need to be the main topic of the source material".

  Cunard (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is spam. The content appears to have been taken from the company's PR material (I mean, 25,000 "ambassadors", c'mon!). Cunard has found some mentioned of the company but even by his own admission there is next to nothing written about *the company* and instead there appears to be coverage of the products (and even that coverage is PR-driven for the most part). The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I reworded the sentence about "ambassadors" from "As of January 2020, the company has over 25,000 ambassadors across the US, all of who are dental professionals" to "As of January 2020, the company recruited roughly 25,000 dentists and dental hygienists in the United States to champion their merchandise in the United States in exchange for compensation."

  The rest of the article is neutrally written.

  The Burst brand has received substantial reviews. I reworded the article's first sentence to make it be about the brand, not the company, since the sources focus on the brand, not the company.

  Cunard (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment seems rather promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2021 (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.