Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vulva Original


 * 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    Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Vulva Original


I'm requesting a deletion for this article. Not because I want it to be deleted though. Quite the opposite. Indeed I'm worried some one will speedy delete the article without proper discussion while I'm not paying attention unless there is an ongoing afd. --Easyas12c (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

*Speedy Delete as blatant advertising. Rwiggum (Talk /Contrib ) 23:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete- SPAM ttonyb1 (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - Blatant advertising. Furthermore, notability is not estabilshed. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article has been expanded and sources have been added to prove notability. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 16:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Discuss i removed the speedy tag because the article appeared to be descriptive, not promotional. I have no comment on notability yet, but lack of notability for a product is not among the possible reasons for speedy. Afds are supposed to last for 5 days. DGG (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- it seems to be a pretty popular topic in the Eastern European press if you check out Google News Archives. Here are some sources I can read that confer some notability: The Independent, Esquire (but you have to have subscription to see it), Radar, Libero/Sky News Italy. SMSpivey (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I never wrote it to be an advertisement. --Easyas12c (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article was originally sourced only to Gawker, but the sources SMSpivey provided establish notability.  Besides, this amuses me. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Not at all written as advertising or promotional. It's notability is obvious. One could say, "It smells of notibility". Unique and personal to a vast audience. Whimsical, on the surface, but informative.--Buster7 (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has enlarged with time. Must be the odor clues. --Buster7 (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for everyone, but that is how I was attracted to this article. Ikip (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy close, speedy keep This nomination appears to be rather WP:Pointy. New York Times mentioned this product, meeting all notability requirements. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Ikip (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing administrator the article has recently been expanded since the WP:Pointy AfD tag was added. Ikip (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as article has been markedly improved since nomination and now meet Wiki standards for inclusion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:54, 2 February 2009 (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.