Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FuelTech

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 no consensus‎. Participants are encouraged to try and rebuild the article based on what they think the best three is. If there is still no consensus after the attempt, we can revisit this after a few months. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FuelTech

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I couldn't find real WP:SIGCOV for this, excluding press releases, copies of press releases on industry websites, and one promotional interview. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, Technology, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:TNT. "After dominating..." "pioneered..." The rest reads like a company brochure. Moving to draft could be an WP:ATD but I cannot find anything meeting WP:CORPDEPTH so not sure if it can be fixed. Would also suggest a merge with Anderson Dick but that looks like a mess and possibly not notable either. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per [1], [2], [3]. The company is well-known in the automotive preparation sector. Svartner (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 05:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Svartner - big in racing and gets coverage for its technology. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the three references presented by Svartner is that they all fail WP:CORPDEPTH.--CNMall41 (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, does appear like depth might be of concern, but from my review is does barely pass towards keep, and generally when we can avoid a delete that is close to call I think it is fair to keep it. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2025 (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.