Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarios technology

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarios technology[edit]

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

Insufficient sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Google News archive has nothing, nor does HighBeam Research. Could probably qualify for A7 speedy deletion, but since it's been PRODed previously I'm bringing it here instead. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable enough. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. would love to see the Article Rescue squadron have a go. LibStar (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.Righteousskills (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Did a search and could not find any coverage at all in secondary reliable sources. Hence fails WP:GNG unless evidence to the contrary can be found. --Batard0 (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2012 (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.