Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeropress


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.  

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Aeropress
This fails WP:ADS and is a contested prod. Gay Cdn 20:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC) From deletion guidelines: ''The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.''
 * Delete: Vanispamcruftisement. &mdash; Kaustuv Chaudhuri 21:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: lacks cites from reliable secondary sources. Stephen B Streater 21:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVad e r 23:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete I use the product and consider it a significant innovation.

Do blogs about coffee and gadgets count? Or are these considered trivial?

http://www.singleservecoffee.com/archives/004326.php http://www.kk.org/cooltools/archives/001187.php http://www.gizmag.com/go/5051/ http://www.coffeecrew.com/content/view/345/27/ http://www.dansdata.com/aeropress.htm http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/502.html http://www.coffeeandcaffeine.com/archives/making-coffee-with-an-aeropress/ http://www.madprofessor.net/2006/05/aerobie_aeropress_1.html http://home.surewest.net/frcn/Coffee/aeropress.html http://mostlycajun.com/wordpress/?p=1689 http://www.howtobrewcoffee.com/aeropress.htm http://tomness.blogspot.com/2006/05/aeropress.html

So people who care a lot about coffee around the web are talking about the aeropress. It would seem to me that a Wikipedia entry is called for. I'm new to this though. If not, then please tell me why. Should any of the above reviews be linked as references? As the reviews are overwhelmingly positive, this might seem even more spammy. (I have no connection with the aerobie company, I just use the thing.) --Bephillips 06:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: blogs do not count as reliable sources, as anyone can write anything and there is no accountability. See WP:RS and WP:V. Stephen B Streater 08:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

''Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym.''
 * Comment: I can understand this with regard to comments on blogs, but when prominent bloggers themselves write something on their blog, there is as much "accountability", if not more, than many other publishing media. Thanks for the links. I see this:

So a blog by someone like Juan Cole might be considered a reliable source. I'm not saying that any of the above qualify as such. I doubt they do. Thanks again for helping me with the process.--Bephillips 23:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.