Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambronite


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 01:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Ambronite

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reason FloCambs (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Fails WP:PROMOTION: Appears to be product advertising at the moment, and can't find sources from reputable news sources, let alone substantial coverage.
 * Delete for now as it seems it is still a small independent product. A News search finds several results in the first page from reputable and notable sources but they start to fade after the few pages. A browser search actually finds other sources such as this and this but I still think it's a little too soon. SwisterTwister   talk  05:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep – The topic passes WP:N with flying colors, and has received international news coverage. Also, the article does not have a particularly promotional tone. Rather, it provided an overview about the topic. Source examples include, but are not limited to:, , , , . , , . North America1000 23:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Relisting comment: Final relist. Esquivalience t 23:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep- Sources are reliable, mark for advert tag.Amitbanerji26 (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 23:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - easily passes GNG —Мандичка YO 😜 23:59, 19 May 2015 (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.