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 keep. Mgm|^(talk) 12:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heat Regenerative Cyclone Engine[edit]

Non-notable (and extremely dubious from an engineering POV) commercial product. No references, no evidence of coverage in reliable third-party sources. Fails WP:PRODUCT. Delete as nominator. Tevildo (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What....I don't get it. TopGearFreak ^Talk 18:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~or Merge~~ I don't dispute that the article needs a lot of work, but it does seem to show an interesting new technology, and it does appear to be going into production (see ref I just added to article). ~~If this cannot remain on its own page, perhaps the content can be merged with External combustion engine?~~ (I have no links with the company, merely an interest in steam engines in general, and this seems like an interesting new application of steam technology.) EdJogg (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Update) just found another reference (added to article) to show that this engine has also won several awards. Yes the article is in a state, but I think deletion is premature. EdJogg (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. Cyclone Power Technologies' Waste Heat Engine Featured on EngineeringTV.com (Market Wire, June 2008) makes it seem this WP article has jumped the gun. Google gives enough hits from non-producer sources. I suggest toning down the language and reconsidering its notability in 6 months. PS I have no links with the company nor with anyone who has edited the article. --Philcha (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. We now have some references, so my primary rationale for proposing the deletion seems to have been addressed; I'm still not completely convinced that the engine is notable, however, so I'm changing my opinion to Neutral. Tevildo (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as covert spam, unless it can be drastically rewritten before the end of this AfD. BradV 21:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Market Watch, published by the WSJ is a Reliable Source, and a major article there about the company is sufficient, and is sufficient evidence for the awards. With the awards, there is no possible question about notability. Spammy articles get rewritten, not deleted. The Motor Trend article confirms it. Market Wire is another matter entirely--its just a publication service for unaltered press releases and has no more importance than the company's own site--I can't figure out why Google News includes it. DGG (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2008 (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.