Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuru (massage)


 * 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) 13:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Nuru (massage)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is about an erotic massage technique that does not meet WP:N. A 4 January 2013 prod delete request was removed by an IP. A much bigger problem is that editors also are intermingling information in the Nuru (massage) article about Nuru brand massage gel, which has nothing to do with the erotic massage technique. This has upset the company that manufactures the Nuru brand massage gel as noted in this help desk post. The Nuru brand massage gel does not meet WP:N either, and I think the best way to address the problem is to delete the Nuru (massage) article as not meeting WP:N. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I found no coverage in reliable sources of either the technique or the gel.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  19:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with deleting it.Wizofaus (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't delete - I'm not certain what the basis for the claim that the massage technique does not meet the notability criteria is - those criteria seem massive and complex -  it would be helpful if the someone could articulate why this technique is not notable. The main issue seems to be around a dispute with a manufacturer of a gel that shares the name - that issue can pretty easily be dealt with I would have though, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Tilapidated (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Tilapidated, the simple version of notability is that the topic has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources (those with editorial control, fact checking and a reputation for accuracy). I have not found any such coverage, so I see no "baby" worth saving.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  21:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable, fails, WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I see nothing but promotional material and board posts about this, so it fails WP:GNG, and the 'gel' is certainly not a notable product either way. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't delete - this topic is pretty well-known and i added some content. You can read about it on Talk:Nuru_(massage). There are also some references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.94.244.1 (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Only two references and neither acceptable. One is a blog site of the gel company and the other could easily be a contrived Q&A on a public input site. If it is deleted it may need salting as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2013 (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.