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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetic field architecture (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)

The article topic, "Magnetic field architecture", is a branded name for what is usually referred to as Electrodynamic suspension. The coverage of the topic is narrowly focused on Greg Henderson and his company Arx Pax. The article fails notability. Any technological information belongs in Electrodynamic suspension, but I can't find description beyond broad statements estimating Magnetic field architecture is somehow cheaper and more efficient. The article is half advertisement, half vague speculation. Forbes72 (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. The puffery is a red flag that this is merely a vehicle to promote a non-notable commercial product. --mikeu ^talk 13:59, 9 April 2019 (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.