Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CrunchPad


 * 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 was   keep. WP:HEY turnaround occurred, clearly going to snow. (non-admin closure) &mdash; neuro  (talk)  23:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

CrunchPad

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Project to build a low cost web tablet. Only references are to the inventor's own website. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

[] - more coverage here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.18.185 (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge with TechCrunch. Certainly notable enough to mention, it hit the front page of Techmeme (as you can see from the above link) and there is independent coverage. Without more third party sources however, I don't think it's ready to be a stand-alone article, so merge. Change to Keep per the new sources. Steven Walling (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. References added, see the article! --Kozuch (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge. With the new references added, this article can be written into TechCrunch and salvaged. Changing to Keep per new consensus. KaySL (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources. -Atmoz (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it barely - even if - qualifies as a stub-class article. Merging it into TechCrunch as has been suggested would be a far more efficient resolution, surely. KaySL (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Right now it's barely a stub. But that doesn't mean it always will be. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, and this subject meets that threshold. If you think it should be merged, that's fine. Take it to the talk page. All I'm saying is that the information needs to be kept, not deleted (after all this is AfD, not AfM). -Atmoz (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true, but the outcome of this discussion is not exclusively whether it should stay or go, but rather what should happen to the subject matter if it's kept. KaySL (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge with TechCrunch or Michael Arrington. It definitely meets notability guidelines, but may not be ready for its own article yet.  Note that the product has not yet been released, so we need to be careful with WP:CRYSTALBALL (Does CRYSTALBALL apply only to events, or to products and other things like this as well?)  LinguistAtLarge &bull; Msg  16:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hence the article reads "initiative", not a product.--Kozuch (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment 'Initiative', product, it's an academic issue right now. The question is over the article's notibility. And LinguistAtLarge, I interpret the content of CRYSTALBALL to mean that products are covered by the policy also. Cheers. KaySL (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: This article is notable enough that I searched for it in reference from this newspaper article. Siraf (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2009 (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.