Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shovelglove


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 08:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Shovelglove

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

Not much of a case for notability here. A dead link to a mention in a radio show's archive, a blog, and a self-published book by the "inventor". I also found a one-sentence mention in the Guardian, but nothing of any significance. Originally deleted for lack of notability back in 2007, I think this has been given plenty of time to improve but still hasn't done so. I tried to improve the references but couldn't find anything better. Short of that, I think it fails to make its case. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete attempt to advertise a rather ridiculous self-published book. Could possibly be speedied either as G4/re-creation or as G11/spam. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above Lets  drink  Tea  22:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep – I think there is minimal notability there. See NY Times blog review, SFF net article. MuZemike 00:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I mentioned that NYT blog (and it's linked to in the article) but blogs don't generally establish notability. I'm certainly not saying it doesn't exist, just that it's not notable outside a handful of blogs. Kafziel Complaint Department 04:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The blog doesn't have to establish notability. It has to reliable and non-trivial. It might've been written in a blog format, but the writer is an author and journalist related to the NY Times which means there's nothing wrong with the blog's reliability. - Mgm|(talk) 12:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - No apparent notability, spam, and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide for exercises, especially ones involving poorly-controlled sledgehammers. (The '14 minutes' bit is especially precious pointless.) AlexTiefling (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I generally frown on blogs as sources, blogs should certainly be acceptable if they are independent of the source, reliable, and professionally edited. Freakonomics in the NY Times definitely meets those qualifications, and I'm fairly certain that Lifehacker does.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  20:10, 28 March 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.