Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nujira

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. Courcelles 17:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nujira

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

This page has only one source, reads a lot like an essay, and is not in Wikipedia's formal tone. Nathan2055 ^talk^-^review 16:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy at Peterchesham if they want it. No indication of WP:NOTABILITY, but ability to meet that looks possible. 90% of material is self-promotional/self interest, but it is not too brazen in that respect. North8000 (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the contribs I think you would have better luck over at Johnfos (talk · contribs). ~~Peterchesham (talk · contribs) seems to have vanished.~~ My bad, Peterchesham (talk · contribs) is still editing. If they want it, they will most likely petition the closing admin. --Nathan2055 ^talk^-^review 17:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC) - Updated 17:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current version qualifies for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising: Nujira enables efficient, wide-band Power Amplifier modules for the next generation of cellular, broadcast and defence communication systems using its Envelope Tracking based technology. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article. Hopefully it is now within the Wikipedia guidelines. Peterchesham — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterchesham (talk • contribs) 15:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are some references in a GNews search, of which by far the most substantial is EE Times , but they are entirely PR-based, and I don't consider that significant independent coverage. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 5 September 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.