The result was keep. Consensus here is that more sourcing is required but there's enough at present for the article to meet the requirements of the general notability guideline, and that the article covers a more generic term as opposed to a specific product from a company, or at least that it could do so. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD of a product. Article creator (who seems to have a conflict of interest as a representative of the company who makes the product) put the following on my talk page:
The author has since made good faith efforts to add in sources, but they include things like registration info of the product and articles that do not mention the subject.
The page appears to contain information that is indeed verifiable such as the manufacturer's webpage and articles describing the individual components (but not Heat-shrinkable sleeve), but there are no sources that provide evidence of notability. After a search, I was able to find this article describing the 45th anniversary of Canusa, the company creating the product. Although heat-shrink sleeves are mentioned several times, they are not discussed in-depth in the article. All in all, does not seem to comply with WP:GNG due to lack of third-party references and WP:PRODUCT as the company itself is not notable. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 16:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]