Talk:Fluidic Energy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Immediate speedy deletion[edit]

For crying out loud, there is something, I don't know, WP:AGF and actually letting an article develop. This is simply insane to nominate something for being a speedy deletion candidate immediately after the first two sentences have been created. This is precisely the kind of garbage that drives editors out of a project and is certainly unhelpful. Yes, I am protesting here! --Robert Horning (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

External websites to work into article[edit]

Below is merely a scratchpad or notebook of credible websites that can be used to flesh out this article and turn it into something more than a mere stub:

Videos:

  • http://vimeo.com/9758210 - Alumni award that includes interview of Dr. Friesen and shows some of the battery technology being researched
  • http://www.technologyreview.com/video/?vid=409 - Video interview of Dr. Friesen and explains some of the history of the company and the metal-air battery technology in general, and what his new company is doing that is different.


Feel free to add, fold, mutilate, and spindle any or all of the above links. I intend to write a more comprehensive article than what currently appears here at the moment with some of the above information. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion[edit]

Although the author had good intentions pulling this article together, the sources have been misinformed and the article does not accurately portray the company. Some inaccuracy examples include: 1) the article lists the company's income at $2.3 Million while currently the company has no sales and 2) many of the key people listed for the company do not even work there.

It is proposed the entire article is removed until a later date when more information on the company is available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfrancesp (talkcontribs) 16:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the possible criteria for that "later date" and what sorts of information are you expecting for the reliability of the information? If you have some information which is not in the article (as you are suggesting here), provide the source! I am going off of what is out there, and the raw information I've provided is from what I can assert to be credible sources. If those sources are mis-informed, then provide a more reliable source that can counter the claim. You claim that many of the key people listed on this company don't even work there.... so what is your source?
This is a Stub. That isn't rationale for deletion but instead to find better sources. Notability is certainly something to consider.... but that is also very subjective and not always easy to determine. Wikipedia:Notability gives some basic guidelines here, but it should be pointed out that these sources do give some of this basic information. Again, if this is mis-informed, provide better and more reliable information! --Robert Horning (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
That is precisely my point. Other than the DOE grant information, there are not enough credible sources out there on the company at this time to provide an accurate stub on the company as a whole. It has been operating fairly confidentially since its inception. Until more information is released or more credible sources are found, I do not think it is appropriate to have a stub on the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfrancesp (talkcontribs) 18:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
What would be the definition of "appropriate" then if this article is currently inappropriate? I am presuming that you, "Cfrancesp", are somewhat close to the company or at least have some personal knowledge that isn't found within public sources... hence your concerns about the validity of the information in this article. Other than the annual income/sales figure (which I admit is dubious and worth revision) is there any factual information which is incorrect in this article? There is also mention of a "division" in Spain, even mentioned in a couple of articles about the company. Is this something correct or again something from a single mis-informed source?
I admit that personal knowledge and unpublished sources are not really a way to write an encyclopedic article. Still, there is enough "information out there" that I believe at least something could be written here. If you want to contribute positively to help fix what is factually incorrect or at least hint about some information that may not be in published sources, that is certainly useful. --Robert Horning (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)