Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CLN (technology)

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.  Sandstein  08:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CLN (technology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Disputed PROD. Original PROD rationale by User:JamesBWatson was "No clear evidence of notability. All of the sources seem to be non-independent and/or promotional and/or do not mention CLN." ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notability established by Gas Turbine World, Distributed Energy and Power refs. --Kvng (talk) 02:36, 5 September 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, —cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It does appear to be a promotional article, and appears to fail WP:GNG as well. The "Turbine World" ref has an image in it that is identical to this image found in the article, so much so that I thought it to be a copyvio at first. However, the image in the reference is more cropped than the one found in the article, so it can't be taken from the article itself. The author of the article is also the author of the image, the same image found in the Turbine World reference, that doesn't give me a huge amount of confidence in that reference's reliability and independence here. The IAGT reference is not an independent source, which leaves the "erosioncontrol.biz" reference as the single source that I think would establish any notability. I don't think that's an overly strong source of notability, and by itself it certainly doesn't give the article the kind of notability needed to have an article of Wikipedia, as articles need multiple sources that can show notability. - SudoGhost 18:16, 7 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The articles cited have that promotional slant toward them, as they rely heavily on quotes from the company's CEO which are similar in each one. Additionally, the source websites are related to the company on as related as vendors, etc. Put plainly, Gas Turbine World, Distributed Energy, and Power are not "reliable sources" for the purposes of establishing notability. Senator2029 • talk 00:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three established publications have published articles on the technology. The fact that they're published is what establishes notability. What does slant have to do with it? -—Kvng 02:31, 19 September 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.