Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waveform necklace


 * 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 speedily deleted by User:Amatulic under criterion G11. (Non-admin closure)  " Pepper "  @ 11:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Waveform necklace

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article for a product does not meet the general notability guidelines or the notability guideline for products. The citations listed in the article are either blogs or self-published, and thus not reliable. The PROD was contested. xanchester  (t)  22:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have no problem with this being userfied, but the issue here is that the necklace hasn't been the subject of any in-depth coverage. There are a few minor news stories that are about a paragraph long at best or some brief mentions, but they'd be trivial at best and wouldn't exactly show notability for this product. Of the sources on the article, here's my rundown of them:
 * 1) An order form for the necklace. This wouldn't show notability and is actually dubious as far as even using as a primary source goes since it's just a price page.
 * 2) The HuffPost isn't usable as a reliable source except in very rare circumstances since it's considered a blog source.
 * 3) This is a primary source, being just pictures of the product. Primary sources can't show notability.
 * 4) Another primary source that just shows how the necklaces are made, can't show notability.
 * 5) Just shows pictures and even if it didn't, this isn't the type of site that would be considered a reliable source.
 * 6) This looks to be your typical non-notable blog entry, which cannot show notability. At the very, very most it could charitably be put in the EL section but even then it would be questionable whether or not it should be even there.
 * I've removed several cites that were just repeats of the same links over and over again. This might actually be speedy-able as being overly promotional.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2012 (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.