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 Speedily deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion (CSD G11).

PopimsCode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Looks like a fine page, until you begin drilling down into Google a bit and realize that the sum total of information on this reputed technology is Wikipedia and the official website. Well-crafted vanity/self-promotion? Also, I realize it's a little odd for an otherwise inactive editor to nominate a page for deletion, but I was doing some research on barcodes and stumbled across this. humblefool® 21:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, and the user who created the page just happens to have the same name as the gentleman to whom the patent is reputedly pending. humblefool® 21:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per WP:NOTRS. Alex ^{discussion ★} 22:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nothing but vanispamcruftisement with serious WP:COI issues … lacking WP:RS to support WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 70.21.12.213 (talk · contribs) _{01:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
• Note: Non-registered users should not vote. Alex ^{discussion ★} 18:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Editors should be logged-in users and my own Talk page … I"ve been here for over five years … how about you? — 70.21.12.213 (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would ask you to use your account in voting, if it's not problem (so everybody know who you are)? Alex ^{discussion ★} 22:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Off topic: Speaking as another long-time anon who doesn't use an account any more (in order to protect my own sanity), there has never been a rule against anons contributing to discussion. And more importantly, this is not a vote. 86.164.110.80 (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what Alex thinks, contributions to AfD discussions are equally valid be they from registered or unregistered editors. If anyone thinks that the policy on this should be changed then they are free to start a discussion on the issue, but this is not the place for such a discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2011 (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.