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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JAC Vapour[edit]

JAC Vapour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No substantial independent coverage, all sources are, or are based on, press releases (see churnalism). A tiny, privately held company. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as entirely PR and there's still nothing at all actually close to establishing independent substance; that's not surprising of course since it's only 6 years old. SwisterTwister talk 22:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I'm only seeing trivial mentions about the product. Does not meet GNG & CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable and agree that it reads like a press release for PR. Kierzek (talk) 12:49, 24 August 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.