Ulike: Drmies ( talk ) 17:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I see nothing but company-issued press releases; no independent coverage.  Owen× ☎ 18:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : If you check on google search for Ulike, you will see tons of articles about Ulike from independent sources and these can be added to the wikipedia page...  Secondly, why would all these hair removal companies be okay on Wikipedia ( Candela Corp , Nad's , check Category:Hair removal) but not Ulike?  Its level of importance is not less than those.  Moreover, Candela Corp doesn't have "ONE" reference... what is going on with Wikipedia's lack of article consistency across the platform.  If you are going to enforce these strict rules after I create an article, show that same passion for policy on other articles that seem to break rules.  This is not right!  More independent sources have been added to the article.  Although I disagree, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.  BeFriendlyGoodSir ( talk ) 22:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] BeFriendlyGoodSir , I'm going to give you a minute to reconsider your rather ridiculous opening claim.  The things you just added--well, more experienced editors will be able to judge them.  You yourself should be able to judge whether this promotional piece is actual journalism (written by "...") or simply product placement.  Drmies ( talk ) 23:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Drmies how about this one?  BeFriendlyGoodSir ( talk ) 23:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you find an editorial statement on that website, or an "About Us" page that explains who or what they are?  I can't, and it reads like advertising.  Also, you removed that personal attack: good.  Drmies ( talk ) 23:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for those, I've also nominated Candela for deletion, they look to have zero sourcing in the article.  Nothing found otherwise either.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : None of the sources used in the article are green per source bot, rest are red or orange, so primary or semi-notable (press releases are primary sourcing).  This is the best I can find [11] , feels like PR.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I will remove every PR promotional source and start from scratch until I know there are no independent sources.  Please give me some time to collect citations at which point I will accept deletion if it is truly appropriate.  BeFriendlyGoodSir ( talk ) 23:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps notable articles on the subject can only be found on China's search engine, Baidu.  I do not have Baidu and I do not speak Chinese.   If I can't find anything in a couple, proceed as you wish.  BeFriendlyGoodSir ( talk ) 01:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] tons of "independent" youtube videos on ulike, can any be used?  BeFriendlyGoodSir ( talk ) 02:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is an encyclopedia: you should not be asking this.  Drmies ( talk ) 17:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Go ahead, delete this, I do not care.  BeFriendlyGoodSir ( talk ) 17:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-notable  company that does not show it importance of getting a page.  Chaosbrigader64 ( talk ) 09:45, 16 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete