Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powerchip


 * 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 speedy delete  as purely promotional. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Powerchip

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No Third party sources found seems to fail WP:GNG The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Pure advertising page, not informative or educational in the spirit of an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.189.201.98 (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * — 110.189.201.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, likely biased autobiographical. Adds nothing. Delete Takai (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * — Takai (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as per above. Not notable (and if it was, the owner of PowerChip would have to realise that he doesn't own the article - if it attracts legitimate negative comment, he'd have to live with it). AndyTheGrump (talk)


 * Agree re deletion. Biased and autobiographical and not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.143.168.129 (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * — 203.143.168.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - not notable. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete not-notable, though it looks like they are a competing brand to these guys.  N419 BH  07:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - The automotive world is full of these devices that purport to improve fuel economy, power, etc... the vast majority of them are junk that do nothing. There's nothing to indicate why this particular device is notable and no third-party references provided. Fails GNG. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as it fails WP:GNG. Non-notable, very little sourcing. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and protect Not worth the drama even if topic is marginally notable. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources are primary - company's own site and an interview with its owner. No reliable sources and no evidence of the marketing claims provided. Basically, no notability demonstrated. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 15 December 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.