Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erke Energy Research and Engineering Corporation


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 10:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Erke Energy Research and Engineering Corporation
Please delete for these reasons: Pjacobi 16:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Gigantous claims at press conferences don't imply notability
 * No reliable, third-party, sources
 * A working perpetuum motion device won't get unnoticed -- the article can be recreated once the reality of the claim is demonstrated


 * Delete until such time as reliable sources arise testifying to the success or (more likely) failure of the Erke perpetuum mobile. Anville 19:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Appropriate wording is used - "claimed", "supposed"; if sources are not notable enough, or the article simply needs improvement of some sort, then tag appropriately. + it seems to be a real company with revenue according to the article, but perhaps that should be tagged with needing citation because of the nature of the article. --Remi 19:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:CORP.  I couldn't care less about the claims, but for a corporation to be notable it needs to be documented by secondary sources.  The sources given seem to be relatively few, and to top it off are written in Turkish!  Without English sourcing, non-notability for an english language encyclopendia must be assumed. --EMS | Talk 20:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think a claim of notability is valid if said claim is complete and utter bollocks.  Unless, of course, the company gained a nice bit of press coverage for making it (which would be an entirely different claim of notability).  Someguy1221 20:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The article has too many weasel words, and they are not verified by third party sources. the company doesn't seem to be notable and it reads like a press release.--Kylohk 22:25, 3 May 2007 (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.