Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuel cell gas appliances up to 70 kW


 * 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Fuel cell gas appliances up to 70 kW

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Poorly written stub with unclear notability. If anything useful, it may be merged into Deutsche Vereinigung des Gas- und Wasserfaches. Beagel (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional comment. No any search results by Google News, Google Books, or Google Scholar. There are few hits (other than Wikipedia or its derivates) by Google Search, but they are only mentioning this standard and not giving enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. The article should be deleted based on WP:N and WP:PUTEFFORT. Beagel (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Being poorly written isn't grounds for deletion unless the article can't be rewritten.  I'd suspect that the awkward title is the result of a rather dry engineering standard being translated from German.  Otherwise, it's just a stub and has room for improvement.  Several Times (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The reason for nomination is not that it is poorly written, but mainly lack of reliable sources to establish notability. Also, during last three year there has been no attempt to improve it at all (excluding redirect to other article which was contested by the creator). Beagel (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Unsalvageable since 70 kW is a completely arbitrary cutoff. WP:PUTEFFORT also applies. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not an arbitrary cutoff since it is the name of the standard that is the subject of the article. This is one of many articles from the same editor about specific industry standards, none of which seem to meet notability standards.--Bte99 (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 3 August 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) 00:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)




 * Agree that 70 kW is a not an arbitrary cutoff, but relevant to the point of the article. It is not, however, a decent article, and should be merged somewhere.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Topic isn't notable. The 70KW appears to be just a German industrial standard, its a case of 'so what'. I mean are we going to have articles with other crappy industry standards, regulations, laws. How about 'the euro standard for the colour of bananas'. BTW I didn't make that up. Szzuk (talk) 18:38, 25 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.