Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanogel (insulation) (2nd nomination)

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. Stifle (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nanogel (insulation)[edit]

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

This article is about a product which has no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article is also written distinctly like an advertisement, and I might have considered speedy deletion had it not been for the fact that there has been a previous AfD discussion, three years ago, which closed as having no consensus because of a lack of participation. The closure then stated that there was "leave to speedy renominate". (Although it is not a reason for deletion, I will also mention that the article was created by an editor almost every one of whose edits have been promotion of products or companies.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 03:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is completely unsourced and fails WP:GNG: I can't find anything except press releases. That this has been sitting around unsourced since 2006 is kind of stunning. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:33, 25 July 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.