Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1hourflex


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 11:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

1hourflex

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails guideline Notability (organizations and companies). This article has a number of links at the bottom, but on close inspection, they are all links to dubious sites, and the purported news articles are all single-sourced. The sole source is either a press release directly from 1hourflex, or quotes from a 1hourflex spokesman. There is no evidence that any of these websites are reputable, nor that they are practicing actual journalism. There is not a single mention of 1hourflex in any newspapers, magazines, books, serious TV programs, or other respected media. Dbratland (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —MuffledThud (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —MuffledThud (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Those articles which cannot our source requirements meet,
 * we will not hesitate to delete. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: If there were an article about the company itself, I might be on the fence about it. But for this article, it's pretty clear. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 04:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable per WP:COMPANY, dubious refs per WP:Reliable sources, borderline WP:SPAM, which this got speedied for in Sept. by same creator. MuffledThud (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment "links to dubious sites," "There is not a single mention of 1hourflex in any newspapers, magazines, books, serious TV programs, or other respected media"


 * Biofuelsdigest is the LARGEST online website of the biofuels industry.


 * Cleantech is another LEADING media for the greentech industry.


 * The company has been nominated Top 100 Greentech Company along with companies such as TESLA (Which I believe that one AT LEAST you know!)


 * Also, visit the company´s press website and you´ll see it is presenting in TOP VENUES in Abu Dhabi, Berlin, Miami, etc: check www.1hourflex.com/press.asp and see for yourself!


 * In the event in Abu Dhabi will be present even the Prince of Spain: http://www.worldfutureenergysummit.com/. Now how can I not notable company achieve that?


 * You obviously are very unaware of the biofuels industry: so please let others judge on this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galonga (talk • contribs) 14:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Biofuels Digest is a blog, and a newsletter, with a staff of one, Jim Lane. It is not a serious journal; it is a conduit for transcribing press releases.  Every article is breathless cheerleading and boosting for the biofuels industry, with zero criticism or investigation of any of the companies being promoted.  While Biofuels Digest may claim to be the largest, best, most read, or whatever, there is no independent evidence of that.  It's just another form of advertising and public relations.  --Dbratland (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, advertising: The company claims that it can convert any car to run on ethanol ("E85") in less than 1 hour. Being named to "top 100" lists argues against notability.  I'm no mathematician, but to me this suggests that there are 99 other similar businesses. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment "I'm no mathematician, but to me this suggests that there are 99 other similar businesses"
 * Besides not being a mathematician you are illiterate as well, as it was said that the company was named along with others such as TESLA which has nothing to do with E85 conversion (and which of course you do not know as well: your loss)


 * Why don´t you just read the company´s press website www.1hourflex.com/press.asp and CHECK THE LINKS there, you lazy bums?


 * But no, instead you just keep making dumb GUESSES and making a fool of yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galonga (talk • contribs) 17:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please be WP:CIVIL, and don't hurl insults at other editors. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's absolutely nothing in google books, scholar or news archive about "1hourflex". Obscure web sites do not impart much notability. Pcap ping  18:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WHY DON´T YOU IDIOTS VISIT THE COMPANY´S WEBSITE WWW.1HOURFLEX.COM/PRESS.ASP AND YOU´LL SEE THE COMPANY IS EVEN PRESENTING ITS TECHNOLOGY IN AN EVENT WITH EVEN THE PRINCE OF SPAIN

BUT YOU GUYS ARE SUCH IDIOTS THAT PROBABLY DON´T EVEN KNOW WHO THAT GUY IS OR CARE

INSTEAD KEEP FOCUSING ON "GOOGLE BOOKS", IF BIOFUELSDIGEST IS A BLOG, ETC

YOU GUYS ARE JUST CRAZY TO PRESS THE DELETE BUTTON TO SHOW SOME "AUTHORITY" SINCE YOU DON´T GET ANY IN YOUR LIVES —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galonga (talk • contribs) 21:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

IF YOU GUYS ARE SUCH EXPERTS IN WHAT MEDIA IS "NOTABLE" WHEN IT COMES TO BIOFUELS THEN WHY DON´T YOU PRODUCE A COUPLE THAT YOU THINK FITS THE BILL?

CAN´T DO THAT? FOUND ONE BUT COINCIDENTALLY ALREADY HAD AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE COMPANY? I THOUGHT SO... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galonga (talk • contribs) 21:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope that the editor commenting above realises that this discussion will be found in the future by any prospective customers of 1hourflex searching for information about the company. I certainly wouldn't consider for a moment doing business with anyone whose promoters are so abusive and illiterate. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: upon his return from blocked-ville, I would suggest that Galonga take a reading trip through wiki-land. Start with WP:CIVIL to learn how to hold a discussion with other editors; you may find that you are the only one who appears hopping mad over this issue and it does not make your side of the argument look very convincing. Next a journey through WP:N to read about what makes a topic important. Note that article subjects must have received significant attention from reliable, third-party, uninvolved sources. See WP:V for more info about that, and note that blogs and press release mills generally do not suffice. Also, if you are somehow connected to this company, please do pay close attention to WP:COI. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 05:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam. Edward321 (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - yes, spam. Dressed up to look like serious analysis, with "claims" liberally scattered around, but reads mostly like a mix of press release and product information.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 16:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.