Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combined Heat and Power Quality Assurance


 * 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 redirect to Cogeneration. Up to editors whether they want to mention it there.  Sandstein  15:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Combined Heat and Power Quality Assurance

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:RS. This is a UK government programme, and as such, will have no authoritative sources independent of it. MSJapan (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge: to Cogeneration, as suggested by User:Kvng. However, I'd note that just because something is a government program doesn't mean that independent sources about it don't exist.  There are plenty of well-sourced articles on government programs.  p  b  p  12:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to Cogeneration as preferred WP:ATD. Material has no WP:V issue. ~Kvng (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. I would also argue to NOT merge.  What's so special about this particular program that it needs mention in Cogeneration?  Listing this would be WP:UNDUE.  -- RoySmith (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see an WP:UNDUE problem dropping a sentence or two into . It would serve to bolster the discussion of incentives and regulation there. ~Kvng (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I do. This isn't a European guideline, it's a UK-only regulation, and thus has nothing whatsoever to do with Europe. MSJapan (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, how about creating ? ~Kvng (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete and no merge as I'm not seeing anything actually convincing for independent notability thus it's simply vulnerable to keep this if there's no convincing notability anytime soon. SwisterTwister   talk  07:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:31, 8 July 2016 (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.