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. Michig (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zestern analysis

[edit]

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

No independent and reliable sources, low notability, not (yet) established in the scientific, article seems mainly commercial and advertisement hroest 11:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 12:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is currently unsourced, so my instinct was to just go with a speedy delete. However, I looked online just in case, and found ... very few secondary sources, and zero on JSTOR. From my search results, it appears to be entirely original research and/or syntheseis of the same. Thus, it fails WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of sources was a red flag, and further searching online for mentions of this method yielded nothing. Additionally, this reads like an advertisement, and is chock full of "original research" (to put it kindly). Unfortunately, this article is what the deletion process was made for. Spiral5800 (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage and reads like an ad.131.118.229.17 (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2014 (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.