Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeoPac

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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NeoPac

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

Speedy contested, blatant advertising, no assertion of notability, ad copy sounds like it's right off the company Web site Wtshymanski (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Broken-English advertising copy. EEng (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note created by a single-use account that has been blocked for spamming. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there is a lot of advertising copy, and irrelevant information (it appears to be trying to be a page about both Neopac and its founder) I am reasonably convinced that this organisation does meet the grounds for notability. Would strongly recommend this article be revised for NPOV. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on...? EEng (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books gives nothing useful (one item is from a bottom-feeding company that republishes Wikipedia content). Google Scholar shows nothing much for Neopac and LED. No coverage==no notability. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:50, 2 January 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 5 January 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, NW (Talk) 02:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. Carrite (talk) 00:14, 13 January 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.