Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New chrysotype


 * 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 of the debate was delete. –  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 16:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

New chrysotype
Delete as not notable. Google returns a whole 8 results. Tombride 08:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, it seems notable enough--I got a whole 125 on my "new chrysotype" search, and 888 for new chrysotype--but it seems like a bit of a vanity article. Perhaps it should be Merged into Chrysotype? Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 09:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment My search was for both the article name and the inventor as mentioned in the article.  To me "new" seemed like too common a word.Tombride 10:03, 2 April 2006 (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.