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. Sandstein 19:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Economic conductivity[edit]

Economic conductivity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The first part of the article seems to be about the term as a concept but cites nothing to suggest it passes WP:NEO. The second part of the article seems to be about a company providing a service, and there’s no indication that passes WP:NCORP. Basically, it looks like an unfocused pile of original research, something we don’t do. SITH (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have deleted the section about the trademark. As well as this section being spammy, the application was abandoned in 2010, as can be seen by searching at [1]. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This looks like OR. Perhaps it is an Essay. Perhaps it is a niche term. Szzuk (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2019 (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.