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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bluestar Mould[edit]

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

Only a little more than 5,000 Google hits, and no Google news hits besides the company website. Not notable. JDDJS (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 03:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 03:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nt only are they not notable, nut the contents of the article are highly promotional about their concepts ang guiding prinivples. DGG ( talk ) 07:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches clearly found nothing better and this has not improved since starting a month ago, emphasizing also the fact I found nothing at all to suggest a better article here. SwisterTwister talk 08:01, 15 December 2015 (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.