Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydrogen Fuel Cells - a different view.


 * 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 Closed. Speedily deleted as copyright infringement. Wily D 00:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hydrogen Fuel Cells - a different view.

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-encyclopedic; no references. Written like an essay representing author's opinions Peter Chastain (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Wikipedia is not a place to store essays. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:POVFORK (Fuel cell, History of the electric vehicle), WP:OR, WP:NOT. Unsalvageable. — Rankiri (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It's a first contribution from a new editor, and although Wikipedia's rules don't permit essays, some of this information, if sourced to a reliable publication, would be appropriate in other articles. The article addresses the subject of innovations in automotive technology that have been kept off the market, about which much has been written.  A lot of it is urban legend (many of us have heard the story of the guy who thought the gas gauge on his new car was broken, and found out after he took the car back that car dealership had accidentally let him have the vehicle that got hundreds of miles to a gallon), but there are other examples of assertions that are notable. Mandsford (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, exactly, that's what makes it a POV fork. None of it is sourced, and the innumerable WP:UNDUE ("The oil companies are like drug dealers...) and WP:OR ("A friend of mine used to go up to Winnepeg...") statements make it practically impossible to distinguish between potentially valuable and utterly worthless claims. Of course, if some of these claims can be supported by reliable secondary references, the author is more than welcome to restate them in a manner consistent with WP:NPOV. — Rankiri (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Starting from the second paragraph, the page is an unambiguous WP:COPYVIO of . Without this content, the article has no meaningful (verifiable and neutral) material and will undoubtedly get deleted as a WP:POVFORK. Tagging for speedy deletion, WP:G12. — Rankiri (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP Fork. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 14:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research and violation of WP:NPOV. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete a personal essay which - as Rankiri mentioned above - might include a possible copyright violation Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 15:51, 18 March 2010 (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.