Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/For Fuel Freedom, Inc.


 * 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. Very low participation, but the lone deletion keep argument doesn't hold any weight as the argument that primary sources such as patents indicate notability is faulty. Fences &amp;  Windows  23:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

For Fuel Freedom, Inc.

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There are many sources in the article, but none of them are reliable secondary sources about the company. That makes me feel it doesn't meet the general notability guidelines, nor WP:CORP. All sources are either primary (the companies website), press releases, or don't or only trivialy mention this company. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The notability guidelines state "worthy of being noted" and "demonstrable effects" on culture, society, ...economies, history, ...science, etc. As a small corporation, readily available information that provides evidence of notability may be harder to come by, and "standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." First, Stephen L. Rush is running for Governor of California, and his company is of interest (see California_gubernatorial_election,_2010). Secondly, For Fuel Freedom's cellulosic process is claimed to produce 3.4 times more than corn ethanol, and has significant implications on society, economy, industry, and science. Its patents qualify as "worthy of being noted" by a "secondary source". Patent reference source was added to the page.

Rather, it is the standard of notability that needs to be reviewed, since For Fuel Freedom is primarily a technology company and secondary sources may not pick up on the development phase, and the term "demonstrable effects" limits small companies exactly in this position. Instead of proposing deletion, a request for a secondary source reference would have been sufficient as a first step, which should be a Wikipedia criteria. EmmettLBrown (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll comment on that some more shortly, and will try and demonstrate why I believe this article is one that is meant in the following essay, but for now, I'll just link it: WP:UPANDCOMING. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me elaborate a bit on this statement. I read that you say it does have demonstrable effects on culture... etc. The process it mentions sure sounds important, but there are no independent reliable sources with significant coverage to back up that claim (yet). As soon as they appear, or can be found, the article will meet the notability guideline. That Stephen L. Rush is running for governor probably means there is a lot of sources to be found about him. However, his notability does not inherit to his company. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In terms of demonstrable effects, I was merely quoting part of the guidelines for the first part of my response. The notability requirement is met by the patent and it is not trivial.  A secondary source has recognized something; that source is the federal government and that something is a tangible and legal piece of paper that gives For Fuel Freedom, Inc. the rights to license technology.  And, although that technology may be up and coming, the patent is not.  My point is that I fail to see how that is somehow not worthy of notability, or is somehow not a secondary source.  Your point that the process has no independent reliable source doesn't matter, because the process is not in question here.
 * Now, a patent has the same notability as a published work (not self published) or an award of recognition such as nobel prize, because a patent is both. It is both published by a credible independent source and a recognition of accomplishment for research and development.  The effects on society, etc. that I referred to is the effects that the patent has had on the industry.  Granted, we could debate whether the recent changes in industry trends is mere speculation and extrapolation; it proves nothing.  However, that does not negate my point that the patent is note worthy.
 * My next point was the question of significant coverage - which I was sure you would bring up. I already commented on the fact that as a small business, there may not be a lot in terms of coverage. This is what was meant by the section that refers to demonstratable effects and Wikipedia policy.  My point is that during a developmental phase there is not a lot in terms of coverage, but in the case of a patent there is significance. And, that is what I mean by the tendancy to limit small company importance. Now, if for some reason you suggest that a patent does not fit notability requirements, I have already recommended that Wikipedia change its stance, because that is not right to include other published works or awards and not patents.  Correct or no?EmmettLBrown (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 01:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I recommend that the request for deletion be removed for the following reasons:
 * A patent is recognized by the federal government as a legal document no matter the size company, and therefore qualifies as being significant not trivial.
 * Insignificant coverage is not the only criteria for significance, and therefore is not a sufficient reason for deletion.
 * A patent is a published work by an credible and independent secondary source, and therefore qualifies as being worthy of notability.
 * Demonstratable effects cannot be proven at this time, but is not a reason for deletion given the patent meets the qualifications for a published work.

I also recommend Wikipedia change its policy on automatically tagging for deletion when a first corrective step is going to be providing a qualified secondary source anyway. If the reference is not posted in 30 days, then tag for deletion. I recommend this additional step to tone down the propensity to take things personally or to create a false image of that person or company in question. EmmettLBrown (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. See the search links above.. None of the sources in the article is usable for notability purposes - mostly press releases, the company's website, or listing in a directory - and I can find none. The argument with respect to the president is doubly wrong: being a candidate in a party primary does not pass WP:POLITICIAN, and even if it does notability is not inherited. The patent argument is even more off the mark. Simply because someone has received a patent does not establish notability, and rightfully so. The patent submission is written by that person and is therefore not independent of the subject, among other reasons. Tim Song (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.