Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sustainability loops

: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. Unsourced, obviously non-notable. Could have possibly have been speedied. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

=[[Sustainability loops]]=

:{{la|Sustainability loops}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sustainability_loops Stats])

:({{Find sources|Sustainability loops}})

Non-notable neologism, promotional, unsourced. No evidence at all this is a notable term; it is used in a few contexts, but without a consistent meaning, and there's no sign at all anyone but the article creator uses it the way it's described in the entry. Appears to be an attempt at promoting both a neologism and a company, the creator's talk page is littered with deleted promotional entries, especially Libriloop.com, described as a "sustainability loops" company. Hairhorn (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete: unreferenced, promotional. Might warrant a mention at Sustainable distribution if there were a reliable independent source. groupuscule (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

: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.