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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BIOFUSE[edit]

BIOFUSE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Major contributor has a conflict of interest, but this page asserts notability, so it can't be speedily deleted. I'm asking the wider community on whether or not this particular article is suitable for our project - it looks much too 'promotional' for us. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not appear to have much on google - most hits for biofuse are for a speedo product or an EU marine biodiversity project. Reads as WP:Original research. noq (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2010 (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.