Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water 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. Joyous! | Talk 03:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Water battery

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Stub based on a technically illiterate press release. Anmccaff (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I dont think its a notable concept for now. For a better overview, here is a long article on the official USC page about it and here is the official press release. It has been picked up by some sources after the initial press release, but there was no follow up than the initial limited coverage. This is a thing for science papers but not for WP at this moment, as it is still very experimental and we cant write much about it. I think it therefore should be deleted for now until (if) it becomes a viable concept. Dead Mary (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. As junk science promoted only by churnalism. Xxanthippe (talk).
 * It is not junk science, there are serious publications about it, but IMHO better information can already be found in Flow battery. There you can also find information on more types of redox flow batteries. Would an article for each and every one of them be justified? If so, this one would have to be renamed, e.g. to "Quinone battery" and seriously improved. The current title is just silly. --Schlosser67 (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * An article for each type would be justified if there is enough material to justify distinct articles. There are already a lot of articles on various battery types. Maybe an article on organic batteries can indeed be created, but this would be a different matter than the article we discuss here. Dead Mary (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:OR. We do not publish new research. Bearian (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2016 (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.