- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- TAPE system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
One mention on a Chinese language marketing site (?), one primary reference. Still does not meet general notability guideline after former prod listing. Brianhe (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing to suggest notability to me. Interesting that the article cites the fact that it is trademarked (which anyone can do) rather than patented (which would require originality). --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:33, 9 December 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.