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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Debate was never transcluded. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aneros[edit]

Aneros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING, the article seems more focused on promoting the product than providing information. Severely lacks encyclopedic value. --> RUL3R^{*flaming | *vandalism} 05:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Actually has strong sourcing for a consumer product. Our articles on Wheat Thins and The Clapper (the first two consumer products that came to mind) have no sources at all. If the nomination is based on a advertising-like tone to the text, this is a fixable problem that shouldn't be solved by deletion. ike9898 (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The product has been around for a long time and I remember seeing it featured on the Sunday Night Sex Show with Sue Johansson many years ago. The presence of many sources is also good. I also agree that an advertising-like tone should be solved by polishing up the article. Queerwiki (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.