Talk:Stanley Quencher

Stanley bottle

It seems this article already exists at this title and would be better merged there. A lot of this article is currently paraphrased directly from the CNBC piece, so I'd recommend working on this topic at the bottle's page. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support Merge Seems to be a reasonable position. scope_creep^Talk 09:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  I tagged this page for merge, and that automatically puts comments at the target page (probably because it's assumed it'll have more watchers?). I've made a note referring people here. Copying my comment here, in support of the merge - Pretty clear WP:NOPAGE issue - this is a product which is trending, and when it stops trending in a few months, it will be forgotten. There's no reason it can't be covered in the fairly small article on the company. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Merge - not notable enough for a standalone article. I mean - it's literally just a cup? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Merge and move Stanley bottle to a title reflecting that it is an article about the company, which (now, if not before) has more than one notable product; since there are several other Stanley companies listed at the DAB page Stanley (yes, bot, I know!), I suggest Stanley PMI since that's apparently what the parent company calls them. The facts about this product are already covered at the other article, which already cites the CNBC source and two New York Times sources: this one that is also in this article and also this one. The product clearly should be in the encyclopedia, but what's absent from the other article is mostly the additional sources here: The Guardian, Country Living, and Billboard, and the last two are substantially promotional. The product doesn't merit a freestanding article. However, our Stanley bottle article has been overtaken by events and its title no longer reflects the fact the company is now known for more than one product. It should be more thoroughly recast, and be moved to a title reflecting that it's an article about a company. (I see on its talk page that someone previously raised an issue about other products not being covered in the article; I didn't check whether that was fixed already.) If there weren't active discussion, frankly I would be tempted to do the honors myself. This title is an obvious redirect title and so is Stanley bottle. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Concur with the rename and the proposed target. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Merge support merge to Stanley bottle, support rename of Stanley bottle, but would prefer to find a better article title than Stanley PMI. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  CC article Aladdin (containers), a thermos brand also owned by PMI. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as the creator of course I would like to keep this as a separate page. But the main reason is that the other page is a company page and this is a product page that is very hot and trending with hundreds of articles about it, so it deserves to have its own page due to its popularity. I didn't spend too much time creating it, but if someone were to do proper research, there is a lot more info there to add, which means eventually it would need to be separated, even if not now.Solemylove (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Solemylove, the problem is, the company makes multiple products that have received coverage. It was previously known for the Stanley bottle. Now there are articles like this from yesterday: Aidin Vaziri (January 22, 2024). "Northern California woman allegedly steals $2,500 worth of Stanley drinking cups". San Francisco Chronicle.. Note that the article refers to "Stanley drinking cups" and characterizes Stanley as "the 111-year-old brand known for its camping gear and outdoor accessories"—not even as a water bottle / drinking cup company. The link at that point in the article is to coverage of the Stanley Quencher craze, but the term only occurs in the text in the quote from the police at the end. The trend deserves coverage, but we're not a business newsletter or even a newspaper and need to guard against recentism; it may be big now, but that doesn't mean it will have enduring independent notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep — the article Stanley bottle itself is ambiguous. Does it refer to the company's original bottle, almost always sold in a forest green color, to the company's entire line of reusable bottles and cups, or to the company as a whole? If it's the latter, let's rename Stanley bottle to something like "Stanley (food and beverage storage)" to distinguish it from the many other businesses and organizations named "Stanley" and keep this article about a specific product that was introduced over 100 years after the Stanley company was founded. White 720 (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't merit that kind of consideration and there is no indication that its anything more a new trend. Wikipedia is not product store or a review sites, reacting to new events in a dynamic manner. . If it becomes popular over a long period in the future, then fair enough, but at the moment its not. scope_creep^Talk 21:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It's been a consistently popular product for 4 years, and it's existed for 8 years. White 720 (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)