Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sliquid

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. - Mailer Diablo 15:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sliquid

Prod removed by creator. He claims that the page contains valuable information and that this is not spam. I have a hard time assuming good faith since the same editor claims that he is the creator of this image. Pascal.Tesson 21:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I disagree with the creator. At best it's a spam advert, although bottle is shaped more like water for cyclists than for a feminine personal sexual lubricant "with the desired flavor or warming effect". Mattisse 21:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — Well, the thing exists... according to the search engines. I am not going to make any comments on the shape of the article. 197,000 hits for google, 83,400 for yahoo 6,245 for MSN, and 6,810 for ask.com. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Eagle 101's comment, but is it a notable? --HResearcher 11:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• 2 cents I think to have this information is valuable but it could be explained more extensively so it is not an advertisement. When I did a google search for this and found it on wikipedia I went right to it. With the extensive lubrication problems with post menopausal women and the high level of premature ejaculation in men it is good to find these products. Granted you could find them without this listing but if they could expand on the science of their product and why it is safer to use their product it would make it more helpful for people who are concerned. ie. why latex safe, glycerine and yeast infection, lidocaine and potential problems, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.144.35.172 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-05 12:50:08
  • Wikipedia is not the place to "expand on the science of the product". Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and a product only satisfies the WP:CORP criteria if someone else has already written and published detailed works on it, including the science of it, outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a venue for conducting primary research. It is an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 13:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, promotional, no evidence that the product is of any importance. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Promotional, does not appear to be notable product. Fan-1967 01:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ad for non-notable product - 227 distinct Ghits. Dlyons493 Talk 02:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:35, 13 August 2006 (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.