Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire glass

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. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 06:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fire glass[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability (WP:GNG) and seems to be an advertisement (WP:NOTADVERTISING). Srsrox (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although notability is borderline, this is a product made by several companies, and the article seems neutral, so I don't consider it advertising. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd say it just about passes WP:GNG, search engine results return some secondary coverage and the topic is not particularly obscure or unknown. The article doesn't appear to resemble an advertisement in its current form. --Half past formerly SUFCboy 20:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added three references to the article and took out a non-neutral phrase. The resulting article has secondary, independent, and in-depth references from wisegeek (marginal in-depth), Glass on Web, and the Illinois State Journal Register newspaper. The reference from woodlanddirect is a primary reference from a retailer of of fire glass, but has some useful information. The eHow reference seems like a useful secondary reference, but eHow is blacklisted from Wikipedia, so is probably not considered reliable. From this, it looks like there are multiple secondary reliable sources and the topic modestly passes general notability guidelines WP:GNG. At this point the article doesn't look all that promotional to me and the woodlanddirect source could be dropped if that is a concern. Notability, along with no major advertising/promotional problems lead me to recommend keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to Mark viking's sourced improvements. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No real bearing on its noteworthiness, but I did just come to Wikipedia looking for information on this stuff, and it would have been a shame if it wasn't there. Sowelu (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mark viking.--Staberinde (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've removed the eHow reference. That is not a reliable source. The other sources (aside from the vendor site) demonstrate notability, and searches with other terms turns up some more minor coverage like this. The substantial soruces int he article in conjunction with the more minor mentions is sufficient to clear the notability bar. -- Whpq (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2013 (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.