Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dodil


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 18:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Dodil

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:PRODUCT. Only one reliable, independent source of any substance. Grayfell (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is not censored, and looking at what I can find sources wise, it seems to meet WP:GNG, if you only found one source you didn't look very far. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with censorship. Does every sex-related spam article automatically get preserved? Please. You're right, though, in that I didn't look very far. The article was written by the product's inventor as a blatant product advert. Wikipedia isn't a platform for advertising, so don't expect a lot of sympathy if you decide to help this guy with his PR. Grayfell (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Advert or no it's an interesting product. My only concern is whether it's toosoon or not, I love picking apart corp articles looking for the agendas and weaknesses and to be honest I am finding it hard to build my own. I have had time to check sources in detail and there's maybe a half-dozen independent reviews, 3-4 reliable news sources, and the exhibition plus award nomination. Is this enough? I think maybe. I would almost suggest sending it back to draftspace, but it would only reappear sometime next month. In my view it is ok as is, and I am happy to make it less spammy. -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Wikipedia is not about censorship. Clearly meets WP:GNG. I agree with Prince of Thieves assessment.BabbaQ (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems to be unique and sourced as to its uniqueness/notability. Would be nice to trim some of the tangential data which does promote the creator and stick to the facts about the product and its, ahem, performance potential (see its talk page about safety hazards mentioned in a source which should be added to the page). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources listed by Prince of Thieves on the talk page and per my own search and because the deletion of this article would probably deprive us of a rib-tickling (oo-er) DYK nomination. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  00:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Basic safety concerns by the most reliable source have been left out. Nicnote say hello!contribs 00:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The reliably sourced safety issues have been added to the article, but could still be expanded from other sources. Prince of Thieves (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I think that WP:TOOSOON may apply here. WP:GNG requires significant WP:IS and WP:RS, both of which are not 'plenty'. Being sponsored by the government to do anything is not a good enough reason to create a WP article. If that was the case every farmer in Europe that gets subsidies would qualify, but it would be notable if there was a press release or significant quality news coverage. I commend for his work copyediting, but it still seems a bit too spammy for me. I don't see how anyone would at this moment benefit from this WP article, other than the creator. It doesn't seem objective, even after fairly extensive work for a stub.  Nicnote say hello!contribs 00:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - So having looked over some of these sources, I see a lot of PR, and a lot of churnalism from blogs and similar. The only substantial, reliable source I've seen so far is the Glamour one. A single review, reliable though it is, is not enough for an article on a product. If there are other reliable sources I've overlooked, could someone please point me towards them? I'm open to such sources, if they exist, but hypothetical sources are not good enough. Grayfell (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - too soon. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising of any kind, and one single independent source would not be considered sufficient for any product article. What kind of product it is is obviously irrelevant. As usual, if and when it becomes notable, somebody who is uninvolved will probably create an article about it. Thanks go to Prince of Thieves for their cleanup effort, though. --bonadea contributions talk 08:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC) Apologies for thanking a sock of a serial sockpuppeteer :( --bonadea contributions talk 08:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Upon re-reading the Glamour article I'm not fully convinced it is independent either, to be honest. Product endorsement is such a "normal" thing these days that it's probably very unlikely that any major magazine will write a review of some random product without the company having sent them a free box of samples, and the links to the store are an iffy sign - a serious independent review would not include those. (I haven't heard of the publication before, though, so maybe it is in fact well known for its reliable reviews.) --bonadea contributions talk 10:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. It seems to me, after looking at the sources, that there isn't enough genuinely independent sourcing, so it really does not pass GNG. The arguments based on censorship and DYK are not valid rationales for keeping. Sorry, but it is at a minimum too soon to stick it in. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Sockpuppet !vote and comments struck. bonadea contributions talk 08:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 13:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I think a sitrep will be useful here. Currently, we have an article that has been pretty much fully created and copy-edited by a sock and a contributor with a COI. The article is also filled with well written damage limiting phrases such as One reviewer managed to break the outer silicone after not following the instructions, causing the product to fail. and then an attempt to highlight the USP of the product. Sources are not substantial in any way, most of which are trade-mags or PR (which I must remind are not appropriate for Wikipedia). IMO the article still fails the basic WP:GNG requirements and various other rules that most contributors somehow manage to stick to. Nicnote say hello!contribs 14:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete On verifiability grounds. The sources are just not reliable enough, and I can't find any better. Julle (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC) Aaand clarifying because sentences don't make sense if you leave out a negation. Julle (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:TOOSOON / WP:PROMO. Coverage is insufficient for a stand-alone article and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.