Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vessel-X

: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. Secret ^account 06:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

=[[Vessel-X]]=

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

:({{Find sources|Vessel-X}})

Appears to fail WP:GNG: does not cite reliable secondary sources, and I cannot find any, that support notability. Also see related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vesselplasty. Scray (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete as not yet well established in the field. Alternatively, if the article Vesselplasty is kept, this title could be redirected there. --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete and do not redirect. The article on Vesselplasty is sufficient, although I am so concerned aboutthe promotional aspects that I recommend we do not make a redirect from this trade name. From famous trade names, yes we certainly make a redirect, but this one is not in that category. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 27 February 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.