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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sileather (material) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails NPRODUCT and GNG. There are sources in the article, but none of these satisfy WP:RS, and thus don't contribute towards the product's notability as a separate product; they establish that it exists. Attempts to find sourcing on Google yields articles that a) have no author, b) are clear press releases, c) have no significant coverage, d) are not independent, and/or e) are simply not reliable. TWL has 7 articles that contain the word, but none of them are significant; all mentions are in passing, or in a list amongst many other like products (again, ENN). Google Books contains 1 book that has a passing mention of the material. Likely better included in Artificial leather instead. WhoAteMyButter (🌇_talk│🍂^contribs) 04:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WhoAteMyButter (🌇_talk│🍂^contribs) 04:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of notability, the sources are just marketing collateral etc. I came across this at AfC and had it G11 speedied a few days ago, but it seems to have been recreated (by a likely UPE editor). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello! I'm not a UPE editor. I'm just a writer who heard about a product, used it and liked it. I recreated this article after first deleting it to improve my Wikipedia writing skills. I kept the same name but not the content of the article. It's a bit frustrating to fail so I wanted to improve it to meet your requirements. I thought I'd done it with the new changes. Thank you for your criticism. RoseSophie555 (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for your comments. I'll try my best to apply all your comments. Please just noticed that it's a product that is getting more appreciate around the world. Secondary articles are not yet many. But I hope with time they'll. And I'll use them to improve the article. Please give a try. Don't delete it now. In few years It can be very popular. Pay attention:I'm not a UPE editor or a worker of this company. I'm just an independent writer who use the product and appreciated it. I apply some changes to make it more neutral. Please let me know what I can do more. Have a good day!RoseSophie555 (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is NODEADLINE. If sources don't exist now, when will they? You can always recreate the article once reliable sources exist for it and you can fix the issues outlined here. As it stands now, though, the article is not notable. That may change in the future, but not right now. WhoAteMyButter (🌇_talk│🍂^contribs) 01:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for your comments. I get what you mean. But before the article get deleted, I'll improve it by searching and adding reliable sources and by improving existing sources. Else I'll wait and when I'll find reliable sources, I'll recreate it again. 16:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC) RoseSophie555 (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2023 (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.