Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silicone Power Battery


 * 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 18:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Silicone Power Battery

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Procedural nomination. Declined speedy/contested proposed deletion. Wider discussion seems needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. English-language sources seem at least carelessly translated and at worst actively misleading. Product appears to be only a brand of gel-cell, not otherwise notable. Descriptions are trying to make it look as if this is a fundamentally different cell from a lead-acid battery, when it is not. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * WP:SILENCE Beeblebrox (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Inadequate refs. Content not ready for prime time.  Name appears to be an asian-only brand.  Similar name silicon battery redirects to battery (electric).  Fails notability. Ikluft (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge: I am not an expert on batteries, but if this cannot have an article of its own, I could see it being a part of an article on another type of battery. Dew Kane (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Merge to more general article appears to be a notable topic and not a hoax, even though the article is in poor shape. It does indeed appear to be fundamentally different from lead-acid, since it does not use an acid electrolyte.  for example uses these. Gigs (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment That referred Web page doesn't mention the electrolyte and does not usefully describe the battery. While tracking down references last week, the patent claims describe a gel cell with some weird magnetic treatment of the electrolyte...but it's still a lead-acid gel cell. It would be very nice if vendors selling this battery could agree on "silicone" or "silicon", for that matter...but that's far from the murkiest language associated with this brand; neither the element nor the family of rubbery compounds seems to have anything to do with the electrochemistry. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I have done a lot of reading. The patent does describe a weird, probably psuedoscientific process of magnetizing the sodium silicate solution.  That said, it does appear that this is a unique electrochemistry that was used in some scooters and by some EV hobbyists.   They seem to universally report poor performance, worse than a normal lead acid battery in their applications.  I will change to merge, only because of the unfortunate problem that none of the good information about the poor performance of these batteries is published in what would be considered a reliable source, it's all in EV forums and blogs.  So all we will have verifiable is the patent and the marketing materials, which would make for a very lopsided article similar to what we already have. Gigs (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, zero evidence of notability. The sources provided in the article are either trivial mentions or not independent of the subject. Tim Song (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 14:26, 23 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.