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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AN-VI

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable material as far as I can see. There is also a whiff of promotion to this article. SpinningSpark 14:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional problems could be fixed, if there were independent reliable sources per WP:RS. However, I have been unable to find such RS. Without in depth, independent, reliable sources upon which to build an article, the article fails notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mark Viking. Doesn't appear to pass GNG. Can't find any non-promotional sources which even mention it. I don't think there will be enough for an article here. Ajpolino (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2016 (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.