Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuel Recruitment


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Fuel Recruitment

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable company. Recognition in the Sunday Times Fast Track 100 list in 2007 is sufficient to avoid speedy deletion, but no other significant sources can be found. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *poke* 20:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete on present showing. Looks like a company without any particular distinguishing feature. Probably does a good job, but so do many more. Peridon (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → ♠ Gƒoley ↔ Four ♣ ← 00:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Recognition in the Sunday Times Fast Track 100 list in 2007 makes it notable. It is a useful article; there does not seem to be any good reason to delete it.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The Fast Track 100 simply means that the company is growing quickly. It was one of 100 companies listed in that article, which is not evidence of significant coverage.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Many companies get listed in top 100 'fastest growing' or similar magazine articles, but the page make no claim of notability nor an encyclopedic summary of why the company is interesting at all. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:39, 10 February 2011 (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.