Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HairMax LaserComb


 * 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. based on WP:N concerns JForget  01:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

HairMax LaserComb

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable product, paid editing spam. Brandon (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect to Baldness treatments. It's hard to call this spam since it's critical of the product. The product has received quite a bit of press coverage; LA TimesCNETNY Post. Pburka (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to a redirect to baldness treatments, where the product was already neutrally covered before the creation of the article. This seems like the best option. Brandon (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am the primary author of the article on the HairMax LaserComb. For the record, we do not understand the reason for this deletion.  The original article without the extensive biased deletions, was factual, had footnotes that could be verified as to source and was not opinionated in any way.  We believe that there was an alleged  conscious effort to alter the article to bias the content against the product..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Namllits2002 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)  — Namlilts2002 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The original article was paid editing spam. Since then editors have made the article more neutral but I'm not convinced the product is actually notable. Brandon (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Notability does not appear to have been established, and the tone of the comment by the primary editor above seems to confirm that this article was created by an organization closely involved with the product rather than a disinterested individual. --DAJF (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep it, it's a good article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.225.135 (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete There is nothing here to establish notability. Google search reveals the company's own website and a few blog comments. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN
 * Delete. Notability does not appear to have been established after all this time, and the article is being used as a promotional vehicle. --DAJF (talk) 05:40, 1 January 2010 (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.