Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sixthsense publications

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. J04n(talk page) 19:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sixthsense publications[edit]

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

Delete, lacks secondary sourcing, seems more promotional then anything else. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, like Haworth said it doesn't even try to pass WP:GNG and in truth, it doesn't. I'm seeing nothing but commercial links. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, purely promotional and the creating editor has been adding spam citations for this company to other articles. Not notable. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:41, 29 May 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.