Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European integrated hydrogen project


 * 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

European integrated hydrogen project

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Ephemeral project. No independent sources about this project. De-prodded with reason: "Enough search results by Google Scholar to establish notability". However, a GS search only renders articles (with medium-to-low citation rates) that acknowledge funding through this project and are not about the project. In the absence of any further evidence of notability, my !vote is delete. Crusio (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although this article needs expansion and better references, there are enough reliable sources to establish its notability. Claims "No independent sources about this project" and "GS search only renders articles (with medium-to-low citation rates) that acknowledge funding through this project and are not about the project" are incorrect and, therefore misleading. Sources like this and this are reliable and valid sources for WP:GNG. Also Google Books gives a number of results about the project.Beagel (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I seem to be unable to figure out where the two PDFs that you provided have been published. Also, on GBooks, all I find are in-passing mentions of this project. Can you give an example of a source about this project? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Beagel, please help us out here to better evaluate the notability of the subject. The first paper was apparently read at a conference, and that usually does not amount to a peer reviewed paper, just that someone told the organizers "I want to read a paper on topic X." Was it published somewhere? The second one lacks info as to where or if it was published.  Which Google Book results have significant coverage of the project in independent and reliable sources? Edison (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Both of these papers are provided by Google Scholar. By my understanding, for WP:GNG you does not need necessarily peer reviewed paper. As for books, maybe Can Cars Come Clean?: Strategies for Low-Emission Vehicles by the OECD, which just not mentions, but describes phase I and II of this project. Probably there are more as 85 books mentions this project. Beagel (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The second paper is published in ADVANCES IN CRYOGENIC ENGEINEERING: Transactions of the Cryogenic Engineering Conference - CEC. AIP Conference Proceedings, Volume 710, pp. 35-40 (2004) Beagel (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On the value of possibly unpublished documents retrieved through GS, see the story of Ike Antkare. --Crusio (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Both of these are published conference proceedings, so using "possibly unpublished" is incorrect. And if you look all search results in general, this is definitely not the case for AfD based on WP:GNG. Beagel (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or slight merge to an article on hydrogen fueled cars. The sources are rather slim for a stand alone article. Edison (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly meets the GNG, per the sources already provided. Notability is not different for modern events that recently ended. Steven Walling &bull; talk   22:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Steven Walling, and close early, because XfD is not for improving pages. Lots of issues in energy law have limited duration but ongoing interest; once notable, something is always notable. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The assertion as put forward in the nom is, however, that this has never been notable. At least one other editor agrees with this, so I don't understand the call for a close. European projects like this go thirteen in a dozen. So they created a commission to propose some regulation. Happens all the time. Perhaps the regulation is notable, or can be mentioned in some appropriate article on a related subject. (Although there is an assertion in the article that the regulations have not even been adopted, what's the use of proposed regulations that don't get adopted?) However, I maintain that this project is not notable. --Crusio (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As it was said, they are used as guidelines for the hydrogen vehicles industry.
 * P.S. Please do not change your previous comments. If you see need to add anything, please add a new comment. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: I'm seeing a lot of WP:PRIMARY source documents prepared as part of this project (which apparently never went beyond the stage of draft regulations), but little indication that it either had a real-world impact, or that it achieved much in the way of WP:SECONDARY coverage. Such bureaucratic projects routinely generate paperwork and then disappear -- so unless its failure to eventuate resulted in a scandal -- or it achieved substantive notability some other way, I would suggest it be left to rest in peace. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The book published by the OECD is WP:SECONDARY coverage. Beagel (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically yes, but only about 1 page on this topic, from another, fairly Eurocentric, bureaucracy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is also a number of other reliable sources. And calling one of the most-valued economic think-tank just Eurocentric bureaucracy ..., well this is actually quite biased statement. Beagel (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Calling the OECD a "think tank" is wildly inaccurate. To call an organisation structured around committees and a secretariat a "bureaucracy" would appear accurate, as would calling an organisation "Eurocentric", which (i) started life as the "Organisation for European Economic Co-operation", and (ii) a majority of whose members continue to be European. WP:SPADE. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Whatever one might think about the OECD, fact remains that there is only a brief mention of this project in this book, far from what would be needed to establish notability. --Crusio (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Brief mentioning is just a mentioning the project versus one page overview as in the case of this OECD book. And there are also other sources. It would be helpful if you give more detailed explanation how exactly this article contradicts WP:GNG. At the beginning you said that there is no sources about the project at all, now you say that describing the project by the OECD at the published and reliable book is not enough. Therefore, I can't understand your motivation to delete this article (as a number of other projects about science and research projects you recently tagged for WP:SPEEDY, WP:PROD, and WP:AfD). Beagel (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * More than just abrief mentioning of a project in a rather obscure book is needed to make something notable (WP:GNG). As for my motivation, that's simple. A while ago I stumbled by accident on this bunch of articles. Most of them are horribly written (most of them by one-time drive-by article creators) and (not too surprisingly) almost none have anything like the sources needed for notability. As I have said repeatedly elsewhere, research projects are thirteen a dozen and they are almost never notable (although participants or their results may well be - or at least can be used to improve articles on the subjects that the research was about). The EU funds/has funded hundreds if not thousands of these short-lived projects. NSF and NIH in the US fund many more projects (with comparable or even much larger budgets and running times) each year, but somehow those grantees don't feel the need to create Wikipedia articles about their projects. So my motivation is simple: removing unencyclopedic non-notable stuff. --Crusio (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Google news archive search shows many things covered are given credibility to have been validated by this group, thus its a notable organization, thought well of in the scientific community. 25 news results, 90 book results, 4,280 Google results, 141 in Google scholar.  Their official website list their partners.  Vandenborre Technologies, BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, FZK, LBST, Linde, Messer, Opel, INTA, Air Liquide SA, Commissariat à l'Énergie Atomique, Air Products, BP, Shell, NCSR, Demokritos, EC-Joint Research Centre, Det Norske Veritas, Norsk Hydro ASA, Raufoss ASA, and Volvo think well enough of them to sign onto this.   D r e a m Focus  21:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been rescue flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Yaksar (let's chat) 06:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per page rescue. As nominated, a reasonable case could be made, but after sources have been added, it's clear this perfectly valid search term now has pagespace which meets RS and NOTE. The Avadikyan & Cohendet source meets directly detailing, the press release from GM is completely independent and refers to the subject as setting existing standards, as do several of the other sources recently applied. BusterD (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2011 (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.