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, both under notability and advertising (A7 and G11, so basically speedy). Xavexgoem (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shamwow![edit]

Prod removed. Notability not established, no secondary, reliable sources. D.M.N. (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability asserted, plenty of weaseling and original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Call now, and you'll get your very own personal article on Wikipedia as a bonus! Hurry, this offer ends in 5 days when the article is deleted! Totally fails WP:N -- no independent coverage. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 18:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no notability or organization. The slogan does not deserve it's own section. Claims of success and failure need additional independent sources. The Team Fortress 2 information is highly irrelevant and unsourced. Hazardous Matt 18:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Spamwow! - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should be labeled as Stub, not spam at all. I have no ties to Shamwow! Inc., I'm only 13. --Degenerate-Y (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Degenerate-Y[reply]

*Hold On- I'm going to try to fix this one up. There should be some sources out there somewhere... I think I might be able to find something to ascertain its notability. PerfectProposal 23:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I dunno. That's the best I can do, given the lack of resources on the subject. It's not exactly a high-profile product, but it's notability may warrant keeping an article on it. We'll see how this plays out. PerfectProposal 00:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC) See below...[reply]

So unless anyone has any major objections, I'm removing the proposed deletion on the page 10:25Eastern US/9:25Central US —Preceding unsigned comment added by Degenerate-Y (talk • contribs) 02:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I think that Degenerate Y may be a puppet of ChuckCoke (they both sign with a signature then copy their name and both are claiming to have created this article, I offer this for comparison). Darrenhusted (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also see this CheckUser which was declined. D.M.N. (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have put together a sock puppet case. But otherwise pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one's odd. Degenerate-Y seems desperate to salvage this article, even going as far as thanking me for saving "his" page [1] In light of the Checkuser suspicions, perhaps we should Delete, until an article can be written free of a potential conflict of interest.Perfect Proposal 13:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was at ChuckCoke's house making it with him, so i guess it's not FULLY my page.--Degenerate-Y (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious spam page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't care who wrote it or about any COI (real or not). If a subject is notable, it gets an article, COI or not. However, there is insufficient notability for this product. The currect sources are: 1) the company's website (moot), 3 blogs (not reliable, so also moot) and one reliable source that's about whether it works, with little actual info on the product. From reliable, independent sources, we simply do not have enough to establish notability. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know everyone says it's spam, and I'm sorry if it seems like it. I'm only 13, I have no ties to Shamwow! Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Degenerate-Y (talk • contribs) 20:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We're using "spam" as short hand for "reads like an ad" not "written as an ad". We're not concerened with what your intentions are/were, only what the article is like. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should Delete the page, if it can be only trimmed to the current revision. Lack of reliable resources found on the web hurt chances of keeping it.--Degenerate-Y (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hey Degenerate no sweat. This article may not have worked out but that doesnt mean you cant try again.. My advice write an article on a topic you think has importance, but write it on your User page. Then ask around at the WP:Village Pump for advice from people. Remember though the article must have importance to lots of people. Here on wikipedia you need to prove the importance by finding newspaper articles about the topic. benjicharlton (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Your First Article. PerfectProposal 13:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a business directory. We are interested in products by their generic type but we don't need an article about every brand name unless the brand is independently notable. This does not seem to be. The only thing standing between it and speedy deletion is the Chicago Tribune reference. Unfortunately that is much less impressive when you actually read it. In fact, it it shows no sign of true journalistic investigation, just space filler. The other three refs are not RS. A quick Google was not encouraging. Google News suggests that the advert is of greater notability (a little) than the product itself (none). --DanielRigal (talk) 00:00, 31 August 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.