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.
Mkdwtalk 03:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Speedied as a G11 (promotional) under a different name, recreated and speedied again. Bringing to AfD for wider attention.
Black Kite (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Please let me know which aspects do you consider promotional? Compared to the earlier page, this one is encyclopedic in nature.
Rzafar (
talk) 12:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - the article is highly promotional in its nature, with most of the sources being primary nature. The two sources that are secondary, do not contain enough information to provide any notability regarding the subject of the article. Other sources are not about the product, but instead only mention it in passing. I see nothing that confers notability, and as such I believe it has no place on Wikipedia. --Jeremy (
blah blah •
I did it!) 09:52, 6 August 2016 (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.
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.
Mkdwtalk 03:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Speedied as a G11 (promotional) under a different name, recreated and speedied again. Bringing to AfD for wider attention.
Black Kite (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Please let me know which aspects do you consider promotional? Compared to the earlier page, this one is encyclopedic in nature.
Rzafar (
talk) 12:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - the article is highly promotional in its nature, with most of the sources being primary nature. The two sources that are secondary, do not contain enough information to provide any notability regarding the subject of the article. Other sources are not about the product, but instead only mention it in passing. I see nothing that confers notability, and as such I believe it has no place on Wikipedia. --Jeremy (
blah blah •
I did it!) 09:52, 6 August 2016 (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.