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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hazwasteonline (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)

Non-notable website (unfortunately). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. 20:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Masquerading as some sort of regulation compliance listing is not enough to get this past WP:GNG. Ultimately it is a non-notable product, or is too niche to be of encyclopedic value. §FreeRangeFrog^croak

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:23, 5 January 2013 (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.