Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thermal Exchanging Composite Materials

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thermal Exchanging Composite Materials

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

This is a multiple recreation, with different titles, of speedied article about a body cooler product. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TXR2. Google News returns no results. Sources are largely Wikipedia articles, blogs and forums.

The connection:

In the deletion discussion of TXR2 there is a talk about how NASA and NASCAR use the product.
Danda2 (talk · contribs) redirected TXR2 to Heat Transference through Composite Materials [1] then to Kalt Fusion [2]
Thermal Transference through Composite Materials metions NASA
Danda2 (talk · contribs) uploaded this, which is used in Ball Capz, a helmet used in NASCAR.
Thermal Exchanging Composite Materials mentions NASA and NASCAR
All of the articles were created in February 2010.

Sole Soul (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Product promotion. -RobertMel (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – promotional articles; if the user recreates the articles (if deleted) then block. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is now no mention of a specific product or logo visible in this article. Only added links after it was suggested. Speaks more on a proven fabric technology.Danda2 (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any relation to the company that produce the product and have you used any other account in this site? Sole Soul (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! pointless question, even if the answer would be yes for both, do you expect any admission? -RobertMel (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. We have other ways of proving other than admission, that's not the goal. I want the user to have a chance to come forward and clear things up. Sole Soul (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup is not a reason to delete. I don't see the promotional angle here. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there is no promotion, the article has a notability and a sourcing issue. Sole Soul (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the connection provided by Sole Soul, the articles refer to products from a compagny. See for exemple Kalt Fusion, there is no such recognized technology, pay also attention to the logo on that page. The creator found a briliant way of not having to mention the compagny by creating different articles. -RobertMel (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the two page mentions the other. One page refers to a performance fabric and the other is a medical and food storage gel pack. There is no links to websites that sell the items or names a specific company only a technology. 3M carries the gel pack under another name in a medical program and is available in hospitals. Should that link be added? Danda2 (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kalt[e] Fusion, in German literaly means cold fusion, there is no Kalt Fusion meaning what your article means. In fact, the logo on the right side, which in the summary you have added logo and branding. The fact that the content of the article you have created say: Capable of reaching dry ice... means that Kalt really intended to mean cold. We can easily conclude from the logo and the claimed technology that it is a branding of a claimed compagny technology which has no notability. -RobertMel (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been removed. It came from awards banquet brochure for new tech. Should I include websites that sell this technology under other names? I avoided doing this only because it seemed like promotions of sells. Thank you for your help. Danda2 (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...there is no Kalt Fusion -RobertMel (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a term of art, unnecessary neologism. Do a search in Google scholar or other engineering database. The name of the article is a subterfuge. If the topic exists outside of the patent, find sources. They aren't here. --Bejnar (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2010 (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.