Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LPS (lubricant)

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. L Faraone 13:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LPS (lubricant)[edit]

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

spam from Voidz. non notable product, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. mix pr and primary duffbeerforme (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per nom. Doesn't make a case for independent notability here, and yes, appears to be rather spammy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, smells like spam--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, looks like business spam. Can't find it anywhere in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk)
Delete This article does nothing to move the project forward. The subject is a minor product with no reliable secondary coverage. Joja lozzo 01:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 07:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:SIGCOV. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 08:21, 22 April 2013 (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.