Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire suppression agent FS 49 C2

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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fire suppression agent FS 49 C2

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

Totally unsourced; unclear notability; only one author who has created few articles, one of which (Incosafety Corp.) was speedy deleted as not notable and advertising; previously PRODed. —danhash (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertisement, zero references. It could come back as a few sentences in a fire suppression agent article. North8000 (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep removed what little could be construed as advertisement. Lack of references and author history are not valid reasons to delete. Halon alternatives in fire suppression are a generally notable topic. --Kvng (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced claims should be deleted, which would result in a blanked article, which is useless. —danhash (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality material should be improved not deleted. I think you'll get further with a WP:NN argument. --Kvng (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search brings up multiple results that are nontrivial coverage from reliable sources. The article does have a problem with citing those sources, but that is not a problem that requires deletion.--New questions? 00:30, 12 April 2012 (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) 12:32, 20 April 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.