The result was redirect to canting keels. MBisanz talk 23:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Whether loooking under the new or old names for the company, there are some ghits but nothing that establishes notability. I declined the speedy on this some months ago as I thought that maybe the involvement with the Sydney-Hobart race might be a claim to notability but in revisiting it, I'm not seeing clear evidence to pass WP:CORP. StarM 01:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply
I still think it should be retained in some form or other. I'm not going to argue that this is the best form, but I don't really see the harm in keeping it as is.
At any rate, you seem to disagree.
As an alternative, perhaps we could at least have a redirect from CBTF to Canting Keel, and add to the Canting Keel page a mention of at least Canting Ballast Twin Foil, and perhaps even CBTF Technology. Could you indicate whether there is a problem with that?
Esb ( talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply