Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aluminium 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aluminium battery

This article is on a proposed type of battery technology that appears to be of highly questionably legitimacy. Unlike all other articles on new battery related technologies, the article contains no references to reputable peer reviewed journals; in fact, I am not able to find any references that I would consider reliable and reputable, making it impossible for this article to satisfy Verifiability. The only sources given are the corporate website, which is currently unavailable, an article which I believe was written by an employee on a website, a questionable wiki, and a distinctly unreliable and disreputable magazine. For the latter, other articles from the same edition, as listed on the linked website, are "Flying Saucers Alive!", "Quantum Leap Technology", and "Discover the Truth about Suppressed Inventions". I believe that these titles speak quite well as to the nature of the publication. All but the four latest edits on the page have been made by a single user, LossIsNotMore, who is James Salsman if the information on his user page is correct. I do not have any evidence that he is related to the company in the article. There is a variety of information and citations on the talk page, but the majority of the content does not appear to be related to the subject of the article - in fact, while I have little knowledge of the particular subject, having merely noticed the article while searching for standard energies of D cells, it does not appear that any of the independent and reputable sources on the talk page have anything to do with the article. Constantine Evans 13:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no third-party reliable sources. Fails WP:V. --Pjacobi 13:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 19:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• DeleteThis vote is in no a statement that such a battery, several times higher in energy density than any technology on the market, is impossible, just that there do not appear to be reputable third party sources cited in the article to back up the claims. A patent does not prove practicality. A public demonstration, and third party testing of a battery by a reputable lab would generate sufficient reputable sources to justify inclusion, not to mention revolutionizing worldwide portable uses of electricity. Best wishes to them for producing and demonstrating a prototype that works as their claims say.Edison 21:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A patent has been filed, but it is in Finnish, so no way to verify it. Anyway, my policy is if it is an invention, no prototype, no article. --203.109.224.204 01:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not yet notable invention. Sockatume 13:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable with only a single source. --Adamrush 13:52, 2 October 2006 (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.