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 keep. Withdrawn by nom. Bongomatic 02:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Good faith web and news searches do not suggest this product is notable. The entry falls under numerous categories in
WP:NOT—adding additional technical details does not make the article encyclopedic. Happy to be proved wrong with some good references, but it’s been tagged for nearly four months, so not optimistic. Bongomatic 23:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep or merge. This product was well enough known in the late-1980s or early-1990s that I remember it from numerous magazine articles. However, the article is unlikely to need any huge expansion (other than a few citations), and the C&T article isn't all that long either; a merge and redirect would be fine, I think. LotLE×talk 00:08, 19 February 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.