Talk:Glog

Notability

As it stands, this article reads like promotional material for Glogster. It certainly doesn't seem to be notable by itself, although the article on Glogster itself (as the only website with glogs, according to this) seems valid and notable. I think this should be reverted to the disambiguation page state, with the current content merged into Glogster. ~rezecib ^(talk) 00:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, one non-notable third party definition (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Webopedia) and one press release on Reuters (which clearly identifies it as promotional material) is not enough to qualify it as it's own article, especially since the article ties to present Glog as an accepted term rather then a product name for one website. I've added a notability tag and personally support merging if no more sources can be found. E123 (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, after waiting for a few months I decided to rollback the page to it's original disambiguation state. A disambiguation page is more useful for Wikipedia then promotional material. E123 (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)