Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celution

Celution (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

WP:CORP Eeso 03:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment this isn't a page about a corporation, WP:CORP does not apply. It's about a process. I see a stub with a reference to a reputable source, but that doesn't say much i kan reed 05:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It's a tangible product of a company - the "Celution System" - one I can't see to be notable. In addition I find no information available that doesn't read like a press release. No mention in peer reviewed journals, etc... Eeso 06:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep BBC has a story about the process, and calls it "Celution." It's also mentioned elsewhere. It's notable. --Alksub 17:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It might be easier to just take this one sentence and merge it into an article on breast augmentation or whatever.-Wafulz 01:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 06:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete a new solution to an age old problem is not notable. There is no indication of meeting notability, even with a few press mentions. Even the Times is not a guaranty of notability Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim —Preceding comment was added at 17:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Could be a speedy under A1. A3, A7 or G11. Vegaswikian 04:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing that really indicates notability. Doctorfluffy 22:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
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.