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. (X! · talk)  · @164  ·  02:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Fire (product)[edit]

Cold Fire (product) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This page is essentially an advertisement for a product. I do not think there is enough information from independent sources to rewrite this article with a NPOV since most available information is from the manufacturer. It also has notability problems and my research could not find any information from reliable sources that distinguish this product from other water/surfactant-based fire extinguishers. Sophitessa (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just barely above WP:ADVERT. Not notable. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 05:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Concur... self promotion articleSupersean (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it has no notability, and it is very promocianal. Pedro thy master (talk) 09:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per above Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's a single reasonable keep argument in the first AfD for this article, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold Fire (why is that not listed in this AfD?), to the effect that "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". YMMV. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no confirmation that this product is a new technology except claims by the manufacturer. It is a surfactant-based fire retardant which is not a new technology (see Fire extinguisher#Wet chemical and water additives) in itself. --Sophitessa (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spamalicious. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the article does not appear to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, as required by the notability policy. -- The Anome (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2009 (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.