Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PyroLance North America


 * 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The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

PyroLance North America

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable fire extinguishing technology. Article notes, "Pyrolance... has lost its license to the patented technology which originates from Cold Cut Systems in Sweden"; in other words, it's not even a currently marketed product. Sources exist, but their reliability is doubtful; the ones I have examined all read like copies of marketing materials. N Shar (talk · contribs) 04:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn; rename to Cutting extinguisher and rewrite. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 20:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article tone is ugly and it's a patent, proprietary technology, but it does seem to have significant novelty and utility to make it notable. If this is genuine and referenceable, we should keep it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to Cutting extinguisher and re-write (change from above). The technology itself (originating in Sweden as "ColdCut Cobra") appears strongly notable, one overseas licensee (PyroLance) isn't more than a footnote. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That would explain a lot. I'll support this. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 20:40, 2 February 2009 (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.