Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecologics (2nd nomination)


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 13:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ecologics

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable WP:N. Ecologics makes the case for itself. Vassyana 17:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 1st Afd Articles_for_deletion/Ecologics--CastAStone|(talk) 19:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for listing the first afd for reference. I should have done so myself and will do so in the future if I 2nd nom an article. Vassyana 19:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable original research. Semperf 18:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 14:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence for notability. Most of the references listed. such as Cornell, do not pertain to this particular viewpoint in any direct way. There is no evidence that the term is generally known or recognized. DGG 23:56, 4 February 2007 (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.