Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GEOSCAN

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. I am not taking into account Roy jyotirmoy's contribution, since it does not address a matter relevant to the inclusion of an article under applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Sandstein 17:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GEOSCAN

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

On-belt elemental analysis is of dubious notability. One specific system for doing this analysis is certainly not notable. Also spam aspects. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this on-belt elemental analysis system. Joe Chill (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On belt elemental analysers are widely used in cement industries for analysis of stock pile and raw mix. Apart from that recently it has been introduced to mineral industry for analysis of minerals like iron ore, phosphate etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy jyotirmoy (talk • contribs) 05:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC) — Roy jyotirmoy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam without significant coverage in multiple independent reliable resources. At date of this comment 1 and 4 (of 4) are not independent (1=United States Patent Application 4=company promotion) and 3 is a site "where tens of millions of people each month publish and discover original writings and documents". Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:50, 29 September 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.