Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Propulsion Universelle et Recuperation d'Energie


 * 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Propulsion Universelle et Recuperation d'Energie

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no notability - company died 2012, never produced anything FootballCleaner (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete No indication of notability. RichardStevens89 (talk) 09:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete company died 2012, never produced anything MatsTheGreat (talk) 10:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: PURE was certainly notable at the time it was founded, and it created some controversy during its brief existence that attracted press attention. It is a fact of the history of motorsport and there are certainly enough references given (and plenty more available) that show it to have been notable. Notability is not temporary; just because their operation collapsed and went nowhere in the end doesn't mean we shouldn't keep the page here for future readers who want to learn a little about what the company was.  Pyrop e  23:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes WP:GNG, and I hope to find more sources to expand the article as much as possible. The PURE project may not have got far, but some high-profile Formula One figures were involved, not without some controversy as Pyrope has pointed out. Furthermore, the development carried out by PURE, however far they got, could yet be continued by someone else. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete no notability, restart AfD invalid - based on Bretonbanquet attack me with lie deletion started after discussion even after I explain he wrong. FootballCleaner (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you are going to claim there is no notability, please make a case as to why that might be so. And please do not accuse others of impropritery without cause. Especially when the same may be said of you and the way you that handled the original AFD nomination after a consensus established that the content was notable on another page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * you liar you repeat lie to attack me - speedy deletion template was in article before discussion on other article, during whole discusion article had speedy deletion or AfD template FootballCleaner (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * you liar discussion was about mentioning PURE in other article, noone in discussion said enough notability for own article and remove deletion template - like Myf1dream.com speedy deletion mentioned in 2010 Formula One season FootballCleaner (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment – FootballCleaner, you can't vote 'delete' again because you are the nominator. If you do not stop attacking other editors, you will eventually be blocked. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment You allowed to threaten block other users? FootballCleaner (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How is that a threat? Take it as a warning, take it how you like. The fact remains that if you persist in calling people liars, you risk getting blocked. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I explain wrong deletion started after discussion. You use not true information attack me. You use not true information attack me. How call person attack other person with non true information again again? FootballCleaner (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete they have no lasting notability as they failed before they produced anything. Freimütig (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary, and is not required to be "lasting". Note: Freimutig is a "likely sockpuppet" of banned user DeFacto: see Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto/Archive. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Easily passes the notability guidelines, even if it shut down before the engines were used. QueenCake (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability does not require permanent significance or importance, just at the time is enough. They can be important as an engineering development even if they never entered production.  DGG ( talk )
 * Comment and warning I am a little surprised at some of the discussion above, which is not pertinent to the merits or lack of merits of the article. I do not want to block for NPA after I have made a comment in the discussion, but otherwise, i would. It is a very basic convention of polite discourse that we do not call people liars.  DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How call person attack other person with non true information again again? FootballCleaner (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Attack person with non true information again again reason block NPA? FootballCleaner (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable subject, proper references. For some reason nominator has shown an interest in wiping all mention of PURE from WP as a whole. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  02:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * no notability fails WP:GNG - autosport sources reword press releases - grandprix random website, not source - Bretonbanquet search one week not find one more source FootballCleaner (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment – It passes WP:GNG. Further sources, , . , , , The Guardian, Reuters, Eurosport, Autosport, F1.com, Sky Sports, AutoBild, ESPN etc etc. There are many more. The argument that this does not pass GNG is risible. I have not had time to incorporate these into the article yet, nothing stopping anyone else doing it. This AfD should never have happened in the first place. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2013 (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.