Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple Cellulose


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Simple Cellulose

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This refers simply to cellulose prepared via a proprietary production process as a food ingredient. The article appears to be written so as to promote this product from the Renmatix company. The sources in the article actually mentioning the product appear to be PR (e.g. FoodNavigator.com, BakingBusiness.com). No indication the product is notable. Pontificalibus 08:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 11:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 11:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. This certainly looks like paid editing.  The topic does not appear to be notable to me.  As mentioned in the nomination, the references are mostly PR.  Those that mention Simple Cellulose are more about the company than about this one product anyway.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Looks to be a trade name if that. I'm not finding anything notable about the product. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I also find no mentions of this product outside of the PR/trade publications cited in the article. Article is promotional in tone, but rewriting would still run up against the lack of independent and reliable sources. Geoff &#124; Who, me? 18:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I would discount sources 2, 3, 4, and 6 entirely, articles from sources like those tend to be puff pastry and basically paid promo pieces. Without those, there is nothing left to this article. shoy (reactions) 14:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and the other editors. A search of "simple cellulose" brings up little third-party sources.  In fact, most of the hits defaults to cellulose. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:51, 16 September 2018 (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.