- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- TRX2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable product lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. The majority of existing article references are not about TRX2 and those that specifically refer to the product only mention the product in passing and/or are about another subject. ttonyb (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 6 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - this article is a promotional piece - shoulda been speedied. How can language like "lead scientist Thomas Whitfield believes..." be considered encyclopedic? Close examination of the author of this article - BibiWhite - (a waste of my time) - is in fact a further promotional piece for Thomas Whitfield. Bibiwhite is not a user - it is self-promotion - give it up Thomas. MarkDask 10:48, 11 June 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.