Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electricity Producing Condensing Furnace


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Electricity Producing Condensing Furnace

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is a cleverly written essay, not an article topic. Sourcing is much about patents and not about sig cov from RS. As such it fails GNG. Padding with wikipedia cites and cites to minor aspects don't cut it. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Essay, not an encyclopedic article.Slywriter (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Trimmed the essay and the two circular refs, but there's no evidence of notability by WP:GNG. The sources are mostly primary, and the only decent secondary source I can find is the 1989 Popular Science magazine article cited. Storchy (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet WP:GNG. The majority of the sources in the article and available online are primary, authored by the inventor himself. There is one short piece in the NYT about the patent application which is not enough to demonstrate notability on its own and the Popular Science article is not independent as it is based on an interview with the inventor. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2022 (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.