Deletion of GladRags

Comment: 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 , to keep it. And what would be a reliable secondary source in this case? Do you really expect ''Time (magazine)|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 (magazine)|Mother Jones'' or ''Ms (magazine)|Ms.'' (or better yet a mainstream women's magazine) for us to keep the article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AADD||WP:AGF)

Comment: per , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)