Deletion of Engadget

Comment: as the now proffered sources show the article meets all requirements of  and the website surpasses the requirements of . With the greatest respects to Collectonion, whose works I admire, this article is a keeper. Again, and with respects, I recommend an early closure to this AfD as now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:WEB||WP:S)

Comment: Passes . Certainly on point 3, possibly on 1. (Since I'd be suprised if they haven't won some sort of major award at some point
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Huh? This is clearly a very notable website. Speedy keep per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: but not solely |per above. A simple search in gNews shows that Engadget is frequently referenced by many mainstream print and web media outlets, including coverage of the blog itself (see http://searchenginewatch.com/3632118). Notability is easily established
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Search engine test (WP:ALEXA)

Comment: No where in  does it say that the nominator has to be acting in bad faith. When the nomination has a snowball's chance in hell, that's grounds for Speedy Keep. And I'm amazed how frequently editors push  with total disregard for . I don't even read Engadget and I know it's a very notable website. I dread the day when Wikipedia gets so uptight that someone's gonna want "1 + 1 = 2" cited by a verifiable, reliable, independent source. And that's not an "if", that's a "when
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Speedy keep (WP:SK||WP:RS||WP:UCS)

Comment: This easily passes  and . It has ample coverage in multiple third party sources. This should have been closed already
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: Wikipedia:speedy keep|Speedy keep is not limited to bad faith (its numbered criteria are introduced with "include", not "are limited to") and explicitly references , which is obviously applicable. There is a consensus. The fact that it's been reached in hours not days indicates the strength of that consensus
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)