Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We-Vibe

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 delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We-Vibe

This was db-spam and because it does have references and is encyclopedic in tone I believe it requires broader review. I consider it a marginal case and have no opinion whether it should be deleted or kept. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Clear case of spam. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I proposed speedy delete as db-spam but I accept the author's assurance that he has no connection with the product. However the article still reads somewhat like a press release and has no references other than to the makers' and similar sites; I think it fails WP:N and WP:RS. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral for now~~ Weak keep. Reviews and other possible reference material are mentioned in the article, but it does need to be found and added. It might possibly show the importance, but at this point there is no reason to suppose that the product is as special as claimed. I urge someone else to give it a serious try. DGG (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, I found some of the reviews, and the ones from a well thought of site do indicate what the site calls "unique" features [1]., [2] DGG (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete While the username is not a definite violation, it does sound sort of...sticky. Also, the article fails WP:V, WP:N, and, if kept, will need a complete and utter rewriting. However, the reason for the "weak" is, as said by DGG, that it does have review, however minor they are. Cheers. I'^mperator 21:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Entry is spammy, but a rewrite is possible. There's a quite a bit of mainstream news coverage: [3]. Hairhorn (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article fails WP:N, seems pretty spammy to me. Kaldari (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an advertisement. --Alynna (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an actual product and is a social revolution. I work in that industry. If asnything it just needs a rewrite.--Guywithoutaname (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the inventor, Bruce Murison. Please note that this is truly a new device and patents world wide have been applied for based on : a middle portion connecting the inner arm to the outer arm, and being sized and shaped to permit sexual intercourse when said sexual stimulation device is emplaced on said woman. Please see our review section http://www.we-vibe.com/Reviews_and_Blogs.php as there are many testimonials that this device is indeed a revolutionary concept that allows women the stimulation they need to orgasm, while providing the ability to make love as normal. I agree this article should not read as a ad for We-Vibe, so please feel free to re-write it, but please give due consideration that the We-Vibe belongs in Wikipedia as a truly new and unique product that is having commercial success because it is an invention that gives women (and men) something that is highly desirable and until now, never before available. Thanks. Feel free to delete this comment if it is in bad form. --Bruce (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2009 (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.