Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commercial fusion

Commercial fusion

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I actually recommend a merge to a relevant section of Fusion power, minus the list of "Commercial Fusion companies" that serves no encyclopedic purpose. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that a list of companies has no encyclopedic purpose, however this seems like it should be a list page similar to List of private spaceflight companies. There are lots of targets which need to be researched on whether they have reliable sources to support them before a decision should be made on this in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just a list of non-notable scammers created by an WP:SPA. This sort of promotion has no place in Wikipedia. Tercer (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that I fit the description of a WP:SPA - I have an interest in a specific area, and as I am learning about it I am trying to contribute my knowlege to the wider community. I also disagree that this is any way 'promotion' - the article provides an opportunity for the community to give an unbiased and well sourced description of the industry. I have taken the list from an industry source - as far as I know they are not scammers. If they are, and you have something to substantiate that claim, then given that they are recieving so much funding that's probably a really important thing to cite in the article and a further reason not to delete it. Lemondizzle (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a WP:COI with General Fusion? You need to declare such things. Tercer (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator that the table of "Commercial fusion companies" serves no encyclopedic purpose; I disagree with the recommendation for merging, because none of the rest of the content is worth it. XOR'easter (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not opposed to a straight delete (I did nominate the article, after all). It's possible that the "First fusion electricity to the grid" section could be a paragraph in the Fusion power article, without that weird section title, though. I'd be okay with a merge or delete, whatever. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly new here, so maybe I misunderstand how this works, but is there no opportunity for the article to remain (and be edited, and improved, and refined) for a period of time before people decide whether to delete it or not? There are lots of articles that are stubs and are given opportunity to fulfil potential. While commercial fusion is definitely a sub topic of fusion power, so are many other separate articles. I found the fusion power article to already be very unwieldy - lumping more things in there may not help with that article? Lemondizzle (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously not a new user, your "first" edits show you had plenty of experience already. Tercer (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tercer here, and I'm about to file a sockpuppet report, but I'll give Lemondizzle a day or so to come clean before I do. The Bapfink vote is highly suspect. Ball's in your court, pal. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lemondizzle and Bapfink are probably sockpuppets or meatpuppets and new to Wikipedia. I don't think Lemondizzle's first edits show any more sophistication than my first edits as a registered editor -- after dozens of anonymous IP edits. Stuff like formatting tricks you can get just by looking at the rest of the page. A long-banned editor is more likely to play the drama boards like WP:ANI; new editors start with articles. I doubt they know all our rules yet -- please don't nuke them for now.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that a list of companies has no encyclopedic purpose - Wikipedia even has lists of lists of companies! See Lists of companies. The list provides a clear view of the approaches being pursued and the favored fuels. However more content would be useful, for instance describing or showing what progress they have made versus the big government funded projects. Bapfink (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: just because we have articles on other companies, some of which are organized into various lists, doesn't mean that this list serves any purpose or has any justification. Why is this a good way to explain the approaches being pursued or the favored fuels? XOR'easter (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, but I did create the article originally so that's not surprising. My rationale was that the term 'commercial fusion' is now widely used, and an objective Wikipedia article would be of value to anyone not familiar with the industry. This is important as a lot of hope is being pinned on these companies, and more importantly taxpayers in many countries (UK, USA, Canada, China...) are part funding them. Moreover, the online coverage is not always objective. Typically I find a wikipedia article useful to give me a balanced view of industries like this, but a simple search for commercial fusion turns up nothing of the sort (e.g., Google search for Commercial Fusion). I'm not particularly wedded to the list of companies which seems to be causing controversy - that list is just taken from the Global Fusion Industry report which I cited on the page. I thought it might serve well to link to all of the articles about the separate companies, and give an overview. I suggest deleting the list if it is deemed unsuitable, but don't delete the whole article. The article clearly needs work and contribution and insight from other users (as do so many other articles), but I thought that was the whole point of Wikipedia - we all contribute and work on an article, rather than have to post the finished article in version 1? Lemondizzle (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article currently serves little to no purpose overtop of existing fusion articles. Article as a whole is basically just an exemplar of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Zero prejudice against re-creation when fusion power actually practically exists. IceBergYYC (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 2 questions to address.

Notability: Commercial fusion is clearly notable. Notability is very well established by multiple reliable sources.^{[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].}
Suitability: If this is a list article, is it suitable for inclusion per our Stand-alone lists guideline.
- Is this list useful?
  - Yes, if you want to see what's going on with commercial fusion activity.
- Are the 2 new editors likely linked to Vancouver-based General Fusion?
  - Yes.
- Is that a conflict of interest?
  - Hmmm -- they've made a big list of …competitors?
    - They've got to be engineers. Marketing would never allow this.
- Do we have this information anywhere else?
  - No.
- Will a lot of the companies fail?
  - Yes.
- Do many of them have serious financial and technical resources committed to them?
  - Definitely. Succeed or fail, collectively these companies are encyclopedic.

Note that our lists guideline requires that every company listed either needs its own article or it needs to be verified with a reliable source as qualifying for the list. So the list entries will need citations (note: cleanup ≠ deletion).

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note for reviewing admin

I find it hard to believe that an account with 11 edits (Bapfink) just randomly happened to stumble onto a deletion discussion for a really obscure topic and voted the same way as the article creator, 9 hours apart, when the article creator also has just 32 edits. That's a hell of a coincidence. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just added links to five Wall Street Journal commercial fusion articles to Talk:Commercial fusion.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun adding refs to list entries for companies that don't already have a Wikipedia article (i.e., blue link).

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As this smells like a WP:SPA to me, and potentially a COI. As for Lemondizzle and Bapfink, J'Accuse! --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 11:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]