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 keep (no consensus). 1ne 06:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looking at the article history, it was originally a press release copied over to Wikipedia. In an effort to clean it up and make it sound less like an advert it was stripped to its bare bones. Then someone stripped it down further making it just a definition. However, it seems that there is some claim that this product works in a different way than other products of its kind, that it's a new technology. That information should be restored to the article (and supplemented with non-press release references) and the article should be kept. ONUnicorn 14:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a quick search on google, and added some potential sources that could be used to transform this article from a content-less stub that resembles an ad to a genuine, useable encyclopedic article. They are listed on the talk page. ONUnicorn 15:21, 17 August 2006 (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.