Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MicroWheel
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. Sandstein 07:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- MicroWheel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable company, does not pass WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Actually it is a product, not a company. But scant evidence of notability and written by someone with blatant COI. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right; thanks for pointing out my slip. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The authors full disclosure is available on the users talk page. This article is not about a company so I believe WP:CORP does not apply. The article was written in a factual, unbiased and non-promotional manner. If you believe differently, please identify the specific issues so they can be rectified. Sources from the Canadian Space Agency which is part of the Canadian Government should be considered relevant and valid. MSCI provided MicroWheel's for the following satellites all with entries in Wikipedia; FedSat, CHIPSat, TacSat-2, EgyptSat 1, Proba-2, LADEE, MOST and NEOSSat. I believe this makes MicroWheel's inclusion into Wikipedia relevant and notable.
--Jphil125 (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no secondary sources discuss this obscure product. Abductive (reasoning) 03:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per RHaworth. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2011 (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.