Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprane


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Cyprane

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fails WP:COMPANY. No significant coverage. Minor coverage about their product but they are not inherently notable because of the product. Tried to find sources to keep the article alive but there is nothing that I can find that is significant. UsedEdgesII (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Not only is the article unreferenced, but the information appears to be dubious and/or incomplete. The company may be defunct; that could explain the absence of a company website. According to this the company changed its name to Ohmeda at some point, and may have closed completely in 1996. Or it may have taken the name Datex-Ohmeda, eventually being acquired by General Electric. This is all way too vague and indeterminate for an article. As nominator noted, there are a few articles from the 1980s evaluating one of its products but that is not enough to make the company notable. In any case, the absence of any verifiable information about the company itself makes it unsuitable for inclusion here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2012 (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.