Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laptop sleeve

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 Delete. Lara ❤Love 18:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laptop sleeve

There are no sources for this article apart from the word "manufacturers". Doesn't appear to be anything more than a dictionary definition. Was prodded but the prod notice was removed without explanation by the original author. Gwernol 23:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems like the laptop sleve might possibly be an invention worthy of a Wikipedia article, but, if it is kept, this article needs to be heavily revised. As is, the language is not encyclopedic at all, and the article is too short and has no references. I am not opposed to deleting it, though, because I'm not sure what else could be said about a laptop sleve beyond a mere dictionary definition. I feel like a tourist (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will modify the language to be a little more encyclopedic. Thanks for the advice.Molivolo:Wiki Newbee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molivolo (talk • contribs)
weak Keep, I think it is sufficiently notable to warrant an article, and I don't think lack of sources really counts as a deletion criterion - WP:SOFIXIT. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the fact that this is simply a dictionary definition does. If we removed the unsourced material, we'd be left with a one line dictionary definition., which belongs on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. The question is, is there anything beyond the dictionary definition to put in this article? I doubt it. Gwernol 16:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still stand by WP:SOFIXIT, and I still think it is sufficiently notable for its own article. Weakly though. :) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: To quote from WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true ... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." No sources not merely is a deletion criterion, it's the most fundamental one on Wikipedia. RGTraynor 16:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, there is little more of use here than a dictionary entry, which should be elsewhere. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than a definition--they've probably actually been reviewed--even accessories like this get reviewed--, so source could be found .DGG (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a commonly used term for products like this, meaning information can be found in reviews, press releases from companies that manufacturer these products, etc. Gary King (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete If this belongs in wikipedia it is as a short subsection of an article called laptop bag. But there isn't much more than definition to provide, even for a more general article. There are no "notable" laptop bags. maxsch (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best this could be a couple of lines in a larger article about laptops or just a dictionary definition --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless (and until) notability can be established. Because a product has 'probably' been reviewed isn't enough to create (or keep) an article waiting for someone to find such a review. Frank | talk 11:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: what good would a 'laptop sleeve' review even do for this article beyond providing a source for the definition of 'laptop sleeve.' How could this article ever be more than a definition? I feel like a tourist (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2008 (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.