Deletion of Squatty Potty

Comment: Meets  per a source review. Concerns with promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article, some of which has already occurred after the nomination for deletion was performed (example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Squatty_Potty&diff=790499705&oldid=790499614 diff, see the page's https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Squatty_Potty&action=history Revision history for more examples
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Hi {{u|SwisterTwister}}, totally incorrect,  doesn't apply to sources and reviews and how-to guides are perfectly acceptable so long as they meet the criteria for establishing notability and are reliable secondary sources. I checked the acknowledgements of both books and they do not acknowledge any input from the company. Also, the Mens Health reference (below) also meets the criteria
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Seems to be some coverage. http://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/how-brands-squatty-potty-are-making-infomercial-fun-again-174875/ Ad Week, https://www.heraldnet.com/life/from-shark-tank-to-costco-is-squatty-potty-a-bunch-of-crap/ The Daily Herald, http://www.forbesindia.com/blog/marketing-and-branding/seven-strategies-a-content-marketing-beginner-needs-to-learn/ Forbes India, & http://www.businessinsider.com/squatty-potty-drops-kathy-griffin-after-trump-photo-shoot-2017-5 Business Insider. I would say that is enough to pass |GNG
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)