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. LizRead!Talk! 00:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Bringing this to AfD as Speedy was declined. Very little sourcing found (links are described but not linked to online sources). What I've been able to track down is this
[1], minimal coverage in a local newspaper. Bringing this to AfD to discuss, most filler used in the article talks about patents and the like, which don't add to notability.
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - I am unimpressed with the reference list. Sources are mostly primary or trivial mentions in minor publications. The content and its referencing is not sufficiently demonstrative of notability. —
MaxnaCarta (
💬 •
📝 ) 00:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per MaxnaCarta. Appears to have been a paid-for article as the author's original username was the name of a marketing firm. Best,
GPL93 (
talk) 13:43, 7 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.