Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LELO

:{{la|LELO}} ([{{fullurl:LELO|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LELO}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{find sources|LELO}})

Product line or company with no demonstrated notability beyond its own press release. Investor-targeted promotional language suggests WP:SPAM, perhaps WP:PUMPANDDUMP. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. Definitely borders on WP:CSD G11. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 12:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above SGGH ^ping! 12:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• No boarderline about it, clearly the only purpose here is to be promotional. Would need serious revision as it looks like copy/paste from somewhere. Speedy Delete: G11 --Bsay@CSU[ π ] 17:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. First of all, the page was an obvious cut & paste copyvio of the [http://en.lelo.com/staticPage.php?page=aboutUs company's homepage]; I have reverted the article to the last non-copyvio version - this page is 2 years old. The article is now no longer blatantly promotional. While it remains poorly sourced, check the web page of any company that sells sex toys, this company's products are all over the place. See for example, [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=LELO+sex&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=ca&hl=en&scoring=a this Google news search], which includes a [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&refer=conews&tkr=WAG%3AUS&sid=avbG958v1hd0 Bloomberg story] about how Lelo products are going to be sold at Walgreens. Hairhorn (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

::Sorry, the Bloomberg story turns out to be a Lelo press release, but there's plenty of other stuff in there, including holiday gift buying guides from the Vilage Voice and MSNBC. Hairhorn (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, as per Jujutacular and Bsayusd --Eva K. ^{is evil} 17:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

:*Their arguments were based on a very different version of the article, I'm not certain they apply anymore. Hairhorn (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Badly needs a rewrite, but this appears to be a notable company. A little bit of poking around the web indicates that the products seem to be rather highly regarded by those who "critique" such things. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @722  ·  16:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC){{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LELO||}}

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @740  ·  16:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @741  ·  16:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability. --Alynna (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The news coverage noted by Hairhorn is not trivial, and does bear out some of the claims made by the company themselves that they make the "world’s best pleasure objects". Being the world's best is notable. I feel that there is enough doubt here to keep this article, though it does need work - perhaps restoring some of material recently cut, and including some of the news coverage. SilkTork *^YES! 15:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep; this business makes consumer products and sells them under its own brand, and would appear to have achieved enough genuine notice by disinterested third parties to meet the guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:14, 14 August 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.