Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electron economy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Sr13 02:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electron economy

Electron economy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

These are two articles in one, so let address them separately:

The concept
One person's theory. A more generic form of this argument can be reliable sourced and added to hydrogen economy as criticism, but Bossel's thesis isn't notable enough for an article if its own.
The company
Fails the general relevance criteria for companies. The claim The company was notable as a prototypical example of the plight of many of the "dot com" superstars founded in the late 1990's. Boom/Bust would require confirmation from secondary sources.

Pjacobi 20:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete neither seems notable enough for an article. JulesH 23:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is a rather high number of Ghits [1] for this term covering both uses. Moreover, there was already a redirect for the company Electron Economy leading to Intend Change. That should be fine and can either be expanded to a real article or nominated at WP:RfD if someone sees fit. Consequently, I've removed the corresponding part from Electron economy, which is now exclusively about the energy-economical concept.--Tikiwont 13:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, if more reliable sources are added or smerge into Hydrogen economy, so that at least the search term remains valid and its source can be found. --Tikiwont 14:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Above can be rephrased as merge unless reliable sources for an independednt article are found. As this currently does not seem to be the case let's merge it into Hydrogen economy. --Tikiwont 15:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't want act like deletion-addicted fanatic here, but pls let me explain my reasoning:
    • The idea that large scale hydrogen distribution, as envisioned by the hydrogen economy, is significantly inferior to the plain old power grid is an often heard criticism of hydrogen economy and should be mentioned there. As this is also called "electron economy" it is a major factor in Google hits.
    • But the more radical, or visionary, ideas from Ulf Bossel (peer-to-peer power grid, elimination of all pipelines) is a rather excotic and insignificant POV -- perhaps less than 100 Google hist if you prefer this measure (proof me wrong and find secondary sources, and I'll glady admit having been wroing).
    • All the neologism parallel to hydrogen economy are somewhat problematic, as they are just sparely used marketing hype for a more general concept, so most of these should be merged IMHO.
Pjacobi 21:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - A google search of "electron economy" finds mostly references to the company, this article, and Ulf Bossel. AS best I can tell, this fails WP:N and WP:SCIENCE, and may also fail WP:NOR as a neologism. --EMS | Talk 17:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete on the basis of no real public attention. DGG 20:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • delete origional research--Sefringle 05:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per ems Bulldog123 05:12, 13 May 2007 (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.