- 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The result was Withdrawn. -- John Reaves 15:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Scottevest ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a directory or platform for advertising. The company is not notable; it has little to no coverage in independent sources. -- John Reaves 18:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: [1]. Quite a bit of coverage in the book "Smart Clothes and Wearable Technology". Another paragraph in this book by a professor who specialises in the subject of smart textiles/clothing. Searching for "Scott eVest" also pulls up a number of book and magazine mentions, e.g. [2], [3], and several mentions/coverage in this brilliant titled book "Moving Wearables into the Mainstream: Taming the Borg". And that's just a small selection of the dozens of hits I found - mainly magazine reviews, articles, etc, but all those mentions in published books - academic ones no less - are very significant. Did the nominator actually carry out a basic search before nomination and declaring "little or no coverage in independent sources?"
- Also - gosh, quite a bit of recent coverage in Google News. [4], and significant articles in both the The Independent and The Telegraph. And a very, very extensive article on Forbes.com. Again - was a basic search even carried out before nomination? I'm very close to arguing "Speedy Keep" as there is so much evidence for notability, but the article does need improvement. Mabalu ( talk) 10:18, 8 May 2014 (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.
- 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The result was Withdrawn. -- John Reaves 15:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Scottevest ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a directory or platform for advertising. The company is not notable; it has little to no coverage in independent sources. -- John Reaves 18:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: [1]. Quite a bit of coverage in the book "Smart Clothes and Wearable Technology". Another paragraph in this book by a professor who specialises in the subject of smart textiles/clothing. Searching for "Scott eVest" also pulls up a number of book and magazine mentions, e.g. [2], [3], and several mentions/coverage in this brilliant titled book "Moving Wearables into the Mainstream: Taming the Borg". And that's just a small selection of the dozens of hits I found - mainly magazine reviews, articles, etc, but all those mentions in published books - academic ones no less - are very significant. Did the nominator actually carry out a basic search before nomination and declaring "little or no coverage in independent sources?"
- Also - gosh, quite a bit of recent coverage in Google News. [4], and significant articles in both the The Independent and The Telegraph. And a very, very extensive article on Forbes.com. Again - was a basic search even carried out before nomination? I'm very close to arguing "Speedy Keep" as there is so much evidence for notability, but the article does need improvement. Mabalu ( talk) 10:18, 8 May 2014 (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.