Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco Pickled Surface

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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eco Pickled Surface

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

I removed an external link, but really think the article should be heaved over the side. It concerns a process which is apparently a manufacturer's or inventor's pet name for its/his procedure (it's unclear if the process is implemented technology or only a design proposal). The article has sat around for five years without meeting proper reference requirements. Раціональне анархіст (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Yes, it is about a process, but it's OK to have an article on a product or process. See COR-TEN. It has proper references in the form of two papers, one published in an industry magazine and the other in the proceedings of an industry conference. It does lack footnotes, but this form of referencing is allowed. It's called a general reference (see WP:GENREF). I have added URLs to those papers, and one of them can be downloaded. A quick check indicates that it supports the text without being a copyvio. Also the technology is implemented. I added cites saying that it was a finalist for an industry award in 2013 and was approved by GM and Chrysler for use in cars in 2014. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability supported by at least two references. Does not violate WP:NOT in any way. ~KvnG 02:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (soliloquize) @ 18:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There do not seem to be independent references that give this process significant coverage. Both references given are by the inventor, it seems. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Jelloman (talk) 23:37, 8 January 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.