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. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GladRags[edit]

Disputed speedy (db-spam). Non-notable product/company without significant coverage in secondary sources or significant awards; the creator's argument for keep is WP:OTHERSTUFF. 9Nak (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article fails to verify the company's notability. Not wanting to be bitey, but it seems to be another case of a SPA using WP for advertising. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 12:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Alexius08 (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I don't know ... on the face of it the article seems spammy and poorly sourced (but not unsourced) enough to delete. However, they do advertise a lot (mainly in progressive women's magazines and environmental magazines) and I had heard of their products before this. As for the article creator's resort to OTHERSTUFF on the talk page ... well, we don't delete an article because of the arguments used by a new editor, SPA or not, who can't be expected to have read WP:AADD, to keep it. And what would be a reliable secondary source in this case? Do you really expect Time or The Wall Street Journal to regularly report on feminine-hygiene product options? I would put it on the creator to find and cite sources (even offline ones we can accept in good faith) in a widely-read magazine like, say, Mother Jones or Ms. (or better yet a mainstream women's magazine) for us to keep the article. Daniel Case (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment... I would second that. Not being that familiar with "progressive women's magazines" or other areas where this may garner attention I haven't heard of this company, but I would happily change my mind if independent, reliable sources were found. On the face of it, though, I'm not changing my tune yet. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 13:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP, and just a hair away from a speediable advertisement, with weasely adlike language such as "Many women are also drawn by the money savings of using GladRags" and so on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quick search reveals several mentions in the press, both mainstream and alternative. I've posted several of the links on the article's talk page. I haven't looked into them to see if they would help with the WP:CORP guidelines. Note that the article can be rewritten to remove the advert content and if sources are provided then there's little reason to delete this. I'm leaning toward "Keep and rewrite", though I'm ever hopeful that the burden of the rewrite will fall on the original author. That doesn't usually happen, so I may take a stab at it later. Stay tuned. Oh yes, and don't penalize the article for the author's mention of "other stuff" on the article's talk page, which I pointed out to him/her wouldn't fly here. Wouldn't you argue the same if you were a newbie? I would. Katr67 (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access them all, but only one of those is non-incidental – and that is ten years old. 9Nak (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Rewrite - per Katr67. It seriously needs editing for NPOV and references added, etc, but the product (whatever about the company) is quite notable. I'll see what I can do to fix it tomorrow (3am here :) ) - Alison ^❤ 10:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cloth menstrual pad covers everything that is notable here. With the nature of the product adequately covered I can't see any reason to have a company/product entry. 9Nak (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep with rewrite. It sounds quite beginner-like, but it is important to be able to find more information about stuff like they. Hey, we need a category "Feminine hygiene products" - not for the advertising, but for the mechanics of the systems. I know you guys feel squeamish, but get over it. Oooh, lots of work to do here: no entry for the Tassaway either. GladRags are mentioned in the

http://www.mum.org/olnws170.htm (Museum of Menstruation and Women's Health). --WiseWoman (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to, say, Category:Feminine hygiene brands? Or just plain Category:Feminine hygiene? I'm not seeing a shortage of information in those areas, nor how that would transform a non-notable product into a notable one. 9Nak (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Katr67, with a sharp *smack* to Starblind, who ought to be embarrased for displaying his bias and ignorance here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, between the several secondary sources now listed on the article talkpage and having a "Google Test" score of 343k, I think it fairly meets the CORP guidelines. The page does need cleanup, to be sure. Kylu (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to sound like broken record even to myself, but just to be clear: your argument is based on (a) the sources listed on the talk page (of which it seems only one is a non-incidental mention, and that one is a decade old) and (b) the the number of ghits on "gladrags" (of which no more than 8% relate at all to this product by a quick count of the first 100 hits). Seriously? 9Nak (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:20, 12 October 2008 (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.