Talk:Hydro Flask/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2021 and 19 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jiyenita.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because...

Honestly, I struggle to understand why this page has been nominated for speedy deletion. First of all, I have no connection to this company--I do not even use their products nor do I want to. Every single statement I made in this article is supported by at least one independent, reliable source, with the exception of Hydro Flask's tagline, which is supported by their website. This company is undoubtedly notable, as evidenced by the coverage of it which can be found in my references. The only thing I can think of is that this is about the beginning of the article mentioning the popularity and quality, but that too is supported by reliable sources and is not my attempt to make their brand sound cool.

Los Angeles Times: "Now we’re in the era of must-have water bottle." "A Hydro Flask has become the kind of gift that can send a tween into paroxysms of joy." How it distinguished itself from any other bottle at sporting goods stores and became a hot fashion accessory is a story about the convergence of several cultural threads: anxiety about the environment, a surge in attention to self-care and wellness, and the simple desire to keep hot drinks hot and cold drinks cold."

CNN: "The Hydro Flask craze is in full swing. It seems wherever you go, there’s someone smugly drinking ice-cold water from a colorful metal water bottle while side-eyeing the disposable plastic bottle in your hand." "Hydro Flask has recently found broader popularity among millennials, Gen Zers and VSCO girls alike." "There are real, tangible reasons people are going crazy for these bottles." (goes into much more detail on this).

USA Today: (This one is not the subject of the article but it still attests to the popularity) "When we tested water bottles this year, the Hydro Flask was one of our favorites. Not only is it a fantastic water bottle, but it is also extremely trendy."

Links are provided in the article's references.

--mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 23:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this meets G11. It did read to be a bit promotional but I think that can be fixed. This brand is pretty well-known and passes WP:NCORP in my opinion. I can't tell if the CNN source [1] is independent of the subject, but [2], [3], [4], and [5] seem to be RS independent of the subject; there may be more. Ovinus (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ovinus Real: Thanks and thanks for your edit to the article. I agree with the removal of the quotes; while I meant it as a firsthand account I can see how it was promotional given their involvement in the company. I also put back and reworded the bit about the social media expansion, because I feel it is important to the company's history, and the founders breaking up, because it is why they left the company but I should've been more clear about this. Finally, I put back the bit about the outdoors community because this was described by the LAT and while it may be positive it is factual. Can't be positive about CNN but according to [6] he is a journalist who works neither for CNN nor Hydro Flask. mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 00:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Mostly agreed, though w.r.t. the outdoors community, I'm a little confused because most farmers' markets are outdoors in my experience. Maybe it could be reworded to "especially outdoor markets". Ovinus (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, farmers markets are outdoors but I meant by "outdoors community" people who enjoy hiking, fishing, et cetera--not necessarily the same people who go to farmers markets. I'll change it to "outdoor recreation community". mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 00:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh that makes sense, thanks for clarifying. Ovinus (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Double walled vacuum bottles were used for cold liquids from 1902. see Vacuum flask. If an article has a false claim where it can be checked, why should we believe the origin story, which relies only on the inventors account? I intend to remove both. DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@DGG: This was on me misinterpreting or misremembering the article, not CNN or the Los Angeles Times publishing falsehoods. For some reason I thought "They took the double-wall vacuum insulation technology Thermos had used since 1904 and put it into a quality, stylish bottle for people living 'an active and joyful life on the go.'" meant that only Thermos was using this technology and therefore it was only being used for hot liquids. These are both reliable sources and they would not publish anything they couldn't confirm. Just because the things they say about the company are positive doesn't mean they are somehow promotional--it is possible that the company truly has a nice story. mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 21:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thermos has been making bottles for both hot and cold for the last 50 years at least. So there is nothing special about these bottles but the decoration on the outside. And there is no news source (at leastin the US ) which does not publish promotional matrial--the job of a really first rate PR specialist is to get some publication that is other aspects respectable to do it. There are ways to tell: True reportage does not use exuberant adjectives., or vague terms of excellence, or feature one particular firm's products rather than another, or report something because it's trendy without giving some actual evidence of it, or put actual news material in a "styles" or "lifestyle" section. Any one of these is enough to at least raise suspicion that though an actual reporter may have written it, he used pr text or suggestions. This is nothing new. The necessary skill to develop in reading news is. skepticism, about everything from fashion to politics to local puffery. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Content Evaluation

Based on the sources provided I can see the CNN source being positively biased and might skew the perception of the product. It is glorifying how Hydro Flasks have blown up as a trend while others might not feel the same way. One way to fix this is by pulling more numerical data on how the company achieved market dominance over other competing water bottles. I would also like to add design awards that the company has received in the earlier stages of the business. Thekevanator (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• HydroFlaskLogo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Notability

Coming back a year and a half later, I'm not seeing a path to WP:NCORP here. A WP:BEFORE search yielded lot of reviews of the product, some of which are used as sources in the article, but only few sources discussing the history of the company itself, and all with flowery language that casts doubt on their independence. It's unlikely that it separately meets WP:NPRODUCT on the basis of these reviews; there hasn't been in-depth coverage of, say, the bottle's technical aspects. Many of these reviews are done in the greater context of the subculture in which they were extremely popular (see VSCO girl) or as part of a broader review of water bottles. I suggest a redirect to Vacuum flask, followed by deletion. Ovinus (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)