Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Nutrients

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Nutrients

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Old information NickyNik (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable and promotional; but the nomination does not make sense--why is "old information" a reason for deletion rather than improvement? DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator, NickyNik, is also the author of the article (and an SPA). There have been no other significant contributors to the article. Would this qualify for speedy deletion under WP:G7? --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.