- 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. postdlf (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Zelfo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage that shows this material/trademark is notable, which means any effort of making this rather spammy article into something good futile Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. As soon as the product gets rolled and discussed in papers and the news, an article can be written. Press releases and product brochures are not for Wikipedia. MicroPaLeo (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It also seems like it has been recently promoted. SamuelDay1 (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and as above, fails GNG --Gaff (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2015 (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.