Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glove One


 * 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   no consensus. v/r - TP 22:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Glove One

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

art project prototype, bulk of refs are blogs Gaijin42 (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: even the ref which appears to be pcworld is a blog. Student project. Not yet encyclopedic. Pam  D  18:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 *  Delete , too soon. The PCWorld blog does appear official by PCW staff but it isn't enough on its own. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is a scant couple hours old, and I got stalled in the process of sources when I found that the creator's website is blacklisted. Seriously, nominating it for deletion already is kinda jumping the gun. Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 06:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 06:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Procedural/Speedy keep - The article was nominated for deletion less than two hours after creation. Please allow time for people to improve the articles. Wikipedia is about encyclopedic topics; it's not about immediate discussion for deletion right after a new article is created. Also, the delete !votes above don't discuss the availability of sources via source searching whatsoever, and appear to be based only upon sources currently in the article. Very importantly, please read in entirety WP:NRVE, which states that topic notability is based upon available sources, not those just in the articles. Also speedy keep, because no valid rationale for deletion has been stated in the nomination, per WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, thus passing WP:GNG. For starters, see:
 * CNET News Article
 * Huffington Post article
 * PC World article (Appears to pass WP:NEWSBLOG)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 06:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, HuffPost is scarcely a RS but the CNET just about has me convinced, and yes I did look at the available sources which were and are pretty flaky. Basically this has been blogged to the brink of notability. Guess it's about keepable. The poor coverage and flash-in-the-pan nature suggests that a merge to a technology article would be the better choice. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep good evidence of notability presented. Too young to nominate for deletion. --Kvng (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2012 (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.