Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperbolic Building System

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbolic Building System

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

No WP:N asserted, no WP:RS given and I could not find any by search. Contested PROD. shoy (reactions) 18:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only search result I found was to something not invented by the person who supposedly invented this. Maybe there's a patent out there, but even if there is per WP:PATENTS that's not much of a reliable source. Even if it were, it would be useless as a means to assert notability. Given the entire web seems to have failed to discuss this system, I don't see any way that this can pass any sort of notability test. Given the line "Improvements are still running and final design will be available shortly.", one could surmise the article is written by the creator(s) and is an attempt to promote the system. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a place for inventors to publicise their latest inventions, whether patented or not. It is certainly WP:TOOSOON for an article on this topic; at the moment it is NOT NOTABLE and looks very much like an attempt at ADVERTISING. Deletion is the right option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:52, 1 September 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.