Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluidic Energy

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fluidic Energy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was prodded with reason WP:SOURCES. I think that for broader discussion we need AfD procedure instead. There could be also problems with notability. Beagel (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article - I am simply beside myself on this article, and I suppose that I should be putting a little bit more effort into gathering sources, but this is simply getting insane here. I came across this company in a couple of articles about energy production and noticed that there wasn't anything on Wikipedia about the company.... so in the spirit of "anybody can edit" I write up an article about that company and do a quick Google search to get some additional sources and information. The very first thing that happens is that the article gets nominated for speedy deletion when I write the first paragraph.

Seriously, this is simply getting insane and to me is a symptom of how awful and desperate the deletionist have become on this project. As for sources, look up Talk:Fluidic Energy and at least read the articles that are about this company.

What does it take, seriously, to write an article on this wiki anymore? Is the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia that a company must be in the Fortune 500 for notability? If there is a problem with the article.... fix it. I admit, "anybody can edit", but it is much harder to write something than it is to be a critic and assert nothing can be fixed. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a footnote here, see also WP:COMPANY for notability criteria for companies. This article does have more than one source, including "international" scope of attention including articles in both French and Russian that I've been able to dig up (mostly rehashing other information in article written in English, so they aren't by themselves useful for inclusion into the article). The depth of coverage in the sources is not merely promotion, but actually gets into the meat of what the company does and is notable because of the novelty of the research activity. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Zinc-air battery, keeping the reliable sources there appear to be 3 decent articles on the company, and the grant is real. however, that doesnt mean the company is necessarily notable yet, as it hasnt produced any goods. I would welcome more sources, and more opinions on whether this deserves its own article. This is only my opinion, however well thought out i may think it is. i added a reference myself. I do hope, of course, that others who feel this is not notable will do the proper research. I think the article probably says too much at this time, which makes it a target for deletion as pure promotion (which it isnt). needless to say, no prejudice against recreating as soon as a notable product emerges. I think Cody Friesen may qualify for an article at this time. google scholar has a bit, but im not clear on notability for academics, and i think the standards tend to be a little high and narrow here for inclusion. creating a startup must help with notability.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps adding content from this research by Dr. Friesen would be in order, and adding some of the references about this company into that article too.... still, I don't understand why it can't stand as a separate article at the moment.

Where I'm really confused here is over the standards for notability for businesses and how that applies in this particular case. I admit that this is a new start-up company and that information about the company is rather sparse at the moment.... which is true for all relatively new start-up companies. As you pointed out, there are several extensive articles explicitly about this company, from independent and reliable sources that seemed to be doing some real journalism and going beyond the basic press release. It at least passes a basic Google test, and is legitimate.

I guess the basic question is if receiving a multi-million dollar grant from the U.S. government qualify for notability, together with bona fide original research at a major university (this article isn't original research, it is about that original research) combined count as sufficient for notability or if perhaps more is needed. I admit that the company is new... in fact on Recovery.gov it lists just six employees and notes that the research really just started in January of this year. I, too, would like to be able to find something else about the company beyond the flurry of articles that were created when the grant was announced.

I just wish there was some compromise between full deletion or sending the content of the article into oblivion with a merger. This article isn't about the battery, but rather about the company. I just don't see a merger really being a legitimate merger and that the sources can really add only a sentence or two to the suggested article.... hardly something that can be called a merger.

As a possible compromise, if this really genuinely doesn't fit notability standards at the moment (I'd like more opinions on that subject.... please!) I'd be willing to move this to a sub-page of my user page as an "article in development" for some time in the future when perhaps some more information about this company becomes a part of the public record and something new happens to the company. I believe that more will happen to this company, and I don't want to go through the effort of having to re-create the article again when that happens. Of course such belief is not grounds for notability and I know that.... which is why I'm offering this sort of compromise at the moment.

BTW, I agree with you that an article on Dr. Friesen would be a good idea, as I've found some additional references to him that go beyond even this company and the research related to this battery concept. I should also note that I have no connection to this company, I don't even live in Arizona, and I'm certainly not trying to make this a promotion piece at all. All I'm trying to do here is to is write an encyclopedia article about something which I find to be novel and interesting. I didn't know that was a crime on this project. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if you write an article on dr friesen, with refs for his scholarly works, etc. i think it would stand. then the material on this new company would be part of it, until or unless the company makes it big. similar issues with an obscure african scientist (Daniel Annerose) who started a company, should it be the business or the person. in that case i thought it should be the business, but now i think it should be the person (i think its hard to get this right, and i dont want to be to OCD about it). many authors are notable, where their books are worth mentioning without separate articles. I still want to hear from other people.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a notable topic here and the article in Technology Review seems adequate to demonstrate this. Whether this is best covered in articles about the technology, the company or its staff is irrelevant to our purpose here. There is no case for deletion as there are good alternatives. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. —Robert Horning (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Robert Horning (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The second link listed on the talk page back in May proves the thing is notable. It says the company received "a $5.13 million research grant from the US Department of Energy to further develop the "breakthrough" technology." I don't believe the government gives out millions of dollars to something unless they believe it to be notable. Clicking on Google news shows results, but I believe the article already has enough references to prove notability beyond any possible doubt. Dream Focus 20:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a notable company based on DARPA verifiably having giving them money for tech R&D.- Wolfkeeper 00:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2.5 million of funding, including DARPA, and well sourced in the trade press? Nominating this is nearly as unfathomable as merging an article on a company to an article on a technology (after WP:UNDUE had its way, what would be left?). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.