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. Courcelles 05:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air Cycle Corporation[edit]

Air Cycle Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Highly referenced article (hence declining speedy), that fails to assert any notability. Stephen 04:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep by original author.

Wtshymanski's neighborhood Thai restaurant doesn't do business across the U.S. and globally, and probably hasn't been the subject of any independent articles.

Wtshymanski's right on the GreenLodgingNews source. I deleted it out. Other press releases are only cited to establish product release dates, Air Cycle clients, and the like. The article cites multiple non-press release sources (Bloomberg, Environmental Business Journal, Lisle Sun-Times, industry journals, EPA study).

The article doesn’t “read like an advertisement” and makes no normative claims. I don’t think notability is an issue here either, unless size = notability or familiarity = notability. Air Cycle isn’t as large or well-known as Waste Management Inc., but it’s been the subject of “multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself,” the Wikipedia criterion for notability. Here are a few more:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061026101406.htm

http://www.wltz.com/news/alabama/Auburn-crushes-light-bulbs-104444999.html

http://www.edcmag.com/CDA/Articles/Web_Exclusive/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_10000000000000201609

http://www.todaysthv.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=83838&catid=2

Thanks for making this a better article.

Delete by original speedy nominator. My neighborhood Thai restaurant puts out press releases, too, and that doesn't make it notable either. The criterion is significant coverage, not just reprints of announcements that the company is pleased to announce the appointment of Joe Bloggs as Chief Acronym Officer. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:CORP. most of the sources are its own website or not indepth coverage. hardly any coverage in gnews [1]. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CORP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Arguments against notability appear to have a bias against non-famous and/or small organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon ks949 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Jon ks949 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"non-famous and/or small organizations" are by definition non-notable and therefore a WP article is not justified. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:41, 6 January 2011 (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.