Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guys Gone Wild

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 & Cleanup. Cbrown1023 talk 00:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guys Gone Wild

Guys Gone Wild (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Spam for non-notable product. No assertion of notability, yet speedy was declined. No coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:CORP. Valrith 21:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Substantial coverage in reliable sources including Tapei Times and Salon, for starters. Otto4711 21:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Another source, for some critical response, SMU Daily. And here's the Tapei Times story in USA Today. Otto4711 21:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete because it reads like product placement that's not even based on a notable company, let alone porn. 69.158.57.45 21:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Rewrite. Subject is quite notable in gay porn. Current state of the article shows a need for improvement, not deletion. CaveatLector^Talk 22:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is plenty notable Corpx 02:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Rewrite. Girls Gone Wild article virtually identical. User Valrith consistently deletes mention of Guys Gone Wild within Girls Gone Wild article, despite products originating from same company. Merging sounds like a fair compromise. geoff43230
• Delete. Doesn't warrant a separate article though some details from it rightly belong in Girls Gone Wild. Kayaker 21:52, 1 August 2007 (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.