Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expatial

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. postdlf (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expatial

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

This is the name of a new "proprietary patented method" of hardening steel and other metals. PROD removed (by the PRODder) because the author planned to add citations from laboratory testing - see discussion on talk page - but it is clear from that discussion, and from searches, that this is too new to satisfy the requirement of WP:NEO and WP:Notability for reliable secondary sources. JohnCD (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as thinly disguised commercial spam. Carrite (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - apologies for my oversight in re-PRODding when I ought to have raised for discussion, thanks to John for picking up on this. As per the PROD, as well as appearing to fail NEO, my searches on GBooks and GNews show nothing for this method or materials. If the materials were discussed in independent reliable sources then I would expect an article could be created without having to use trademarked terminology as the article title. --Fæ (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a cleverly-disguised piece of spam. Alexius08 (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2011 (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.