This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: keep, 18 September 2012, see discussion. no consensus, 14 August 2012, see discussion. no consensus, 6 January 2012, see discussion.

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Could a moderator tell me if this article is acceptable? Thanks. Narayan Raman (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third nomination was delete. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed several improvement tags from the article after having either addressed the tag concerns via some edits or concluded that the tags were improperly placed. Taking them one by one:

• Advertisement: The article, at least in the state I found it, in no way resembled an advertisement. It made no claims of superiority to similar technologies.

• Inline citations: I have converted a few of the references to inline citations, so the article now has three.

• Notability: The article has survived three AfD conversations, and has multiple sources, at least two of which are in printed books. While I am always in favor of adding additional sourcing, I think notability has been established by consensus...but this is a bit more of a subjective call, I admit.

• Self-published: I see no evidence that the inline citations are self-published sources. If they are, then there are serious problems with this article; so, if someone can supply evidence that they are self-published, please do so here and we can take a look.

I may add a tag looking for additional references, because while I think the article certainly has sourcing now, the sourcing isn't exactly awe-inspiring. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]