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. czar 05:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RocketOwl (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)

Contested PROD. Non-notable, fails WP:CORP JMHamo (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as searches found nothing particularly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG, only mentioned in passing in RS'es. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While it was interesting in its environmental spin, none of the articles actually support a notability claim. Some small coverage of the launch, but little after that. If it then became notable, we would see more. Chris vLS (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:GNG is met by cited sources but more demanding WP:CORPDEPTH requirement is not met. ~Kvng (talk) 13:10, 22 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.