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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pm p2e

[edit]

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

Appears to be a promotional page for a non-notable corporation or quasi-governmental agency. Excessive puffery and extreme jargon make this a useless article. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - article is cut-and-pasted from this. While that's PD and thus it isn't WP:COPYVIO, it is WP:PLAGARISM. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indications of notability. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Not notable. Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - as Bushranger said. History2007 (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an apparent ~~copyright violation~~ example of plagiarism and promotional goobledygook. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 01:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No WP:RS and looks like WP:PLAGARISM and copyvio. →TSU ^tp* 08:30, 18 June 2012 (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.