Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuroprotexeon

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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroprotexeon

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

I don't see evidence that this company meets the notability guidelines. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 14:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 14:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 14:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability can be established by the addition of several sources each with substantial in-depth coverage specifically about the company (as opposed to general concept of the use of xenon as an anaesthetic). There are seven sources in the page at the moment. Several of them mention neuroprotection, but not one of them appears to mention "Neuroprotexeon" (unless it is in pay-walled content?). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP/WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:37, 13 March 2016 (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.