Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eneloop

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eneloop

Basically, this appears to be yet another rechargeable battery type. If this has some new technology or something, it might warrant discussion in article rechargeable battery, Nickel metal hydride battery or a related article, but I don't think specific battery sub-brand is notable enough for an article of its own, especially if it's a very new brand (how new it is, the article fails to tell). Also, the article is advertisatory in tone (to say the least) and doesn't provide too many sources. Prodded by me as "Yet Another Unremarkable Rechargeable Battery Model, advertisement"; ip 213.232.127.35 removed prod with comment "Unnecessary labeling of the article as a unremarkable battery advertisement. eneloop is the only battery on the market that can reverse the millions of batteries destroying the environment every year." and removed my {{advertisement}} while they were at it, too.--wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN as of right now although I really want to WP:BJAODN the name of the product for some reason. Whispering^(talk/c) 17:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:V, WP:RS, and is completely NN. Reads like and advertisment. Toss it in the garbage. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 18:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - Brian is going to love this, but I think it might be salvageable, as it does seem to differ from traditional rechargeables, at least from the quick look I've had so far. I may return for an argument later on (although I suspect not, this time). Yomangani^talk 23:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. the only references come directly or indirectly from Sanyo themselves, and it seems to be an improvement on existing designs rather than an innovation per se. Plus it already gets a mention in Rechargeable battery. Yomangani^talk 23:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Hehe, I did the same research before commenting so I just decided to wait until you had done your own search and came up with the basic results I did -Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 04:59, 18 August 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.