Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GladRags
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
— User:Daniel, 13:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:AADD||WP:AGF (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)