Deletion of MyFreeImplants

Comment: Breast implants are clearly an encyclopedic topic. But you admit that this article reads like an advertisement, which means this is , in your opinion? Please clarify
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:SPAM)

Comment: Doesn't a BBC news special about the topic make it meet ? After some further digging I've found that the topic is also featured in an upcoming book http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385508530/sr=8-1/qid=1152202646/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7742549-5925608?ie=UTF8  Beauty Junkies: Inside Our $15 Billion Obsession With Cosmetic Surgery by Alex Kuczynski an author for The New York Times. The book has not yet been released however
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: no evidence that site meets 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Unfortunately, a "possible" reference such as the one you mention doesn't count as a |reliable source, in my opinion. Per , the evidence must be non-trivial (i.e., actually and incontrovertibly ''about'' the site, most definitely by name), which in this case, it doesn't seem to be without |adding one's own opinion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:WEB||WP:NOR)

Comment: To me, it's dependent on one's personal definition of "non-trivial" mentions per  and , about the site itself and not just the topics of breast enhancement, cyberbegging, etc. The blurb about the BBC Three show doesn't mention the site at all, just the breast enhancement market in general, and there's no indication (without watching it or reading a transcript) that it's mentioned in a more than passing fashion on the program itself. Likewise, the Houston Press article is more about cyberbegging in general, and mentions the site in a vague "here are some sites we found" context rather than truly being "about" it. The AVN thing is also just an ad for some promotion that mentions the site in a context of a giveaway. I can't speak to the reliability of Vyuz as a news source, however. Of course, other editors' opinions may vary, so I welcome their input as well, in terms of possibly changing my recommendation
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:WEB)

Comment: WP:BITE does not apply to objective statements of fact that are in line with |AfD etiquette
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)