Deletion of Lake Mower

Comment: I think http://www.observertoday.com/page/content.detail/id/509996.html?nav=5007 this reference from the State of Washington's Department of Ecology suggests a bit of notability for this product. It's interesting technology, anyway. The original version of the article had lots of trademark symbols, but I removed them all, per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:MOS)

Comment: The sources provided by Invmog are either press releases or forums. This coverage is not enough to establish notability per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Thanks also, Tryptofish, for being so ; it's pretty refreshing to find in deletion discussions and so I removed some of the links going to companies who sell lake mowers but I didn't get them all yet but I'm all for having them removed. Also, I was wondering if we should completely remove the 'Accessories' section to make it sound less like an advertisement (the only reason that I included it in the first place was because I modeled the whole page after the String trimmer page which is why the sections are called History, Operation, Environmental impact, and Accessories.) Epipelagic, I know naming it just 'Lake Mower' could be very confusing which is why I wanted to name it 'Jenson Lake Mower' but I think if we could secure a free picture it'll a lot less confusing either way. Oh, and Tryptofish, you said "The lead refers only to one brand, by the brand name" which was very true, but as far as I can tell no other company makes the stuff and I think they have it patented but I'm not sure, but regardless I removed the 'Jenson' part
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Civility (WP:CIVIL)

Comment: I'm still for keep because, to quote Tryptofish, "I think the page reads as though it's early-stage encyclopedic now.i.e. most of the reasons why the article was nominated for deletion in the first place have been fixed The question is whether it passes , which hinges pretty much entirely on what is now reference #5 (formerly 8) which I believe is now reference #6" and if that source and the others don't establish notability (please check them) then I'm committed to finding more that do, indeed I found two other possibly secondary sources (which I listed above) but I haven't used them in the article yet because I was seeking feedback from Tryptofish as I was taking all of his advice on how to improve the article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: At this point, I would still lean towards '''delete'''. To be more specific than I was before: (1) The lead refers only to one brand, by the brand name, and is sourced to the company's website. (2) There are only two sources that satisfy : the inline cite to a municipal report (#6), and the inline cite to the Washington State Dept. of Ecology (#10), and neither really establishes notability. Cites #1, 2, 3, 5, and 14 go to the company's website and are promotional. Cites #4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, and 16 are essentially paid advertisements. Cites #12 and 13 are dead links. (3) The external link is also the company's website. (4) Even after the new edits, the page still contains "Many long-time customers have given the Lake Mower generally positive reviews" and "one of the most cost-effective mechanical aquatic weed control methods available." Maybe it would be best to userify until the page can be made encyclopedic
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: My apologies; I just now saw Epipelagic's last comment and I also forgot to sin my last comment. Um, Epidelagic, I'm not opposed to there being a more general article which is includes many different types of mechanical lake weed harvesting methods. However, I haven't done any research on those so you'll have to do that on your own. With the latest reference that I found (the one which I found after you said that the article "as it stands should be speedy deleted") I think the article meets now . It's true that I'm opposed to usurping this article into a more general one, but if you really that a more general article is needed then I could help you with it some, but after my latest reference I think Tryptofish would agree that this article has at least three very reliable and independent references right now and I can remove more of the poor references later (it's dinner time, sorry). Thanks for the feedback
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)