Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home Energy Resources Unit

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. Rough consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Home Energy Resources Unit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Essentially, WP:TOOSOON. There are certainly reliable sources, but it seems to me that this is basically a singly flurry of interest in something that may or may not become truly notable in the future. TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The BBC article and Reuters report, both cited in the article, taken together would seem to meet WP:SIGCOV. WP:TOOSOON would not apply in that case. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly applies as the articles are merely about a prototype. It may not work as promised or for whatever reason may never go into production. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a prototype, but is it a notable prototype? Prototypes aren't automatically WP:TOOSOON, even if they fail to be developed further. Yehudi lights are notable enough to be a GA, even though they stopped development in the 80's. I'm not saying that, as it stands, we could make this article the same (there aren't that many references yet), but something more like the Lanchester petrol-electric car is easily achievable with even the current level of sources. TOOSOON doesn't apply here, only "If [sufficient] sources do not exist": an article could be created if "its subject should be verifiably notable due to its discussion in sufficient independent secondary reliable sources." WP:TOOSOON isn't a replacement for WP:GNG, it's not an argument against including recent events – instead, it's a counter argument when somebody pulls out a WP:CRYSTALBALL and says "Well, it could be notable in the future". Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY, so once it meets WP:GNG it won't stop being notable; therefore, what we need to discuss are the sources. I suppose it'll be kind of hypocritical for me not to offer my analysis when I'm asking the delete !voters to do so though, so I'll go first:

BBC Article (April 4), by BBC Science Correspondent David Gregory-Kumar. Although it's been called a blog by Gregory-Kumar (see vid. below), I'm fairly sure the BBC retains final editorial control. It isn't that long, at 500 words, but since the whole article is about our subject, supplemented by the video below, I think it meets the requirements as our first reliable source.

YouTube Video appears to be a copy of an official BBC Midlands segment, again by Gregory-Kumar. ~3 minutes long, divided approximately into 1 each of the inventor demonstrating the prototype, Gregory-Kumar explaining the mechanisms at the workshop and the host and Gregory-Kumar discussing the potential economic impact at the studio. This is the same source as above, and together I feel it firmly represents significant coverage by one source.

Reuters Video (July 2, Matthew Stock) is a lot shorter, only 1:59 – though my initial concerns as to its sharing footage with the BBC video don't appear to be a problem: on review, the camera angle of BBC footage doesn't seem to be the same and cutting out Gregory-Kumar shouldn't produce that perspective. I think it does have the same footage as another source though. Possible issues: Independence (as a distinct source), depth of coverage

VoA Video (July 14, Julie Taboh) Same thing, slightly longer at 2:18. This is the source that I think shares footage with the Reuters video. The only reason I'm mentioning it as well is because the main content of both seems to be the dubbed voice over, and not the original track from the footage. Honestly, I can't quite put a name to the format (a sort of mini-documentary thing?) but it seems like pretty standard journalism from reliable sources. Possible issues: Independence (as a distinct source), depth of coverage

YouTube Video (July 5, Martyn Andrews) This is from the verified RT UK YouTube channel, and while RT has been criticized on neutrality, this being relatively apolitical I think it should be considered reliable. It's longer segment, close to 4 minutes, also covering how it works and links to economic implications. Possible issues: Reliability (as a potentially biased source)

Daily Mail Article (May 9, Claire Duffin) I think this is slightly less in depth than any of the above sources, but no other issues stand out. Overall, it should make a good supplementary source. Possible issues: Depth of coverage

There are of course other sources, both already cited and not, but on initial evaluation, they look to be of lesser reliability and I don't think they will be used to establish notability, though they are decent supplementary sources for confirmation and support. Interestingly, it appears to have recently achieved some international coverage, though I can't read Vietnamese that well and don't feel confident assessing that source, so I will also avoid trying to use that to assert notability. Overall, I think that the subject of the article does meet GNG and cannot be deleted per TOOSOON, but I am open to striking my !vote should the delete rationale be revised.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a notable prototype you ask? No, not at this point. That there are articles about the prototype does not equal GNG. In fact, there are very few articles. If this were truly a revolutionary idea that is likely to have real impact, I would expect much more significant coverage and frequent updates about the status of the project, including investors lining up and studies on practicality, feasibility, and sustainability. We would have dozens of separate, independently researched articles by now. The fact that one of your sources is the Daily Mail (which mainly just recycles other content from legitimate sources) is an indication there is a serious lack of coverage. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: I've struck the Daily Mail as a source, but I have to ask, is your requirement of "frequent updates" based on policy or your own interpretation of notability? Our policy wrt. notability seems largely consistent, whereas outside of Wikipedia, depending on use, notability varies from "nearly any random person who has achieved anything at all" to "people who are at the top of their fields". It could be a very broad term, so if you could point towards a policy like WP:NOT or an essay (maybe an WP:AFDP that you've seen?) that clarifies what kind of coverage you mean, it would be much appreciated. I am not saying it's a revolutionary idea (it looks to me as if it were just charcoal production + an incinerator, both technology we already have), but I don't feel the nomination has sufficiently disputed the significance of coverage or explained why the nominator feels article doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons I stated, there is insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Look at the dates of the coverage. It's a handful of articles over a short period originating from very few general sources, highly typical in our news cycle. Basically, a guy came up with an idea and made a prototype. Are there ANY peer-reviewed studies that testify it actually works? Are investors lining up? Are factories getting ready to produce them? Is it being demonstrated at green expos? No. There is nothing but a prototype. At this point it's not even worthy of being merged with another article because there is such little scientific information confirming it's efficacy. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: How are you interpreting WP:GNG? It's been demonstrated to the news sources, and I'd assume the BBC at least is sufficiently reliable to not publish when a demonstration fails. I don't see why the lack of academic papers would be a factor, seeing as there's nothing of academic interest here. Pyrolysis and combustion are both things that are well known to the scientific community, and plenty of commercial uses: e.g. there are ovens that clean themselves through pyrolysis. The person inventing the first nutcracker wouldn't have published a scientific paper, because it was just another type of lever. It's not even novel on the fuel generation aspect, since pyrolysis is a well documented method of biofuel production. The only matter of interest is its commercial application, and that's what the news reports cover. Yes, you're saying the news coverage doesn't count as WP:SIGCOV, but it's not clear to me why. Are we treating this under WP:N(E)? The coverage is spread out over several months, and there is still coverage ongoing (the Vietnamese article was published less than a day before my analysis of sources), so if we are using N(E), this likely falls under WP:RAPID, so why not draftify it? It's just not at all clear to me which guidelines that you're using, so I can't really address your argument. Are you using WP:ACADEMIC? WP:1E? WP:EVENT? WP:ORGCRIT? Another guideline or essay? I understand that there are issues with the article, but I don't know which ones you think justify deletion, and the discussion is unlikely to progress unless you elaborate a bit more on your rationale.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Cube Root Of Infinity (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I felt the BBC and Reuters reporting were the best WP:RS. The other sources are useful if they have information those two don't, but aren't really that great for establishing notability. I think the Local Gov citation is interesting though, and if anyone knows more about its circulation and reliability (is it a sort of official thing?), that would be great.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nom has been addressed by additional refs. The Cube Root Of Infinity (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic meets WP:GNG, as per having received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Some of the sources are more independent than others, but overall, meets GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 14 August 2018 (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.