Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydrail

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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrail

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

non notable neologism WuhWuzDat 04:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many reliable sources easily found through Google News Archive that don't just use this term in passing, but discuss and define the term itself. Read the policy on neologisms to verify that the coverage of this particular topic in reliable sources meets Wikipedia standards for notability. Cullen328 (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neogolism fail... despite what Cullen says... it's not a widespread term, and there's nothing in this "article" that isn't easily covered in the hydrogen transportation or railcar articles. Very easy redirect. Shadowjams (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a widespread term. There are several thousand technical articles and news items online. The United Nations hosted the Sixth International Hydrail Conference in Istanbul last year and the Government of Korea will host the 7th this summer in Seoul. If :hydrail" was a neologism when it appeared in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Hydrogen Energy in 2004, that was 7 years ago. It's now the generally accepted term of art and newly involved scientists refer to the Wiki entry for the precise definition. The Univerity of North Carolina's hydrail dot org site is visited by 600-800 unique visitors every month from an average of 45 countries. At one time Google references reached 111,000. Some 15 countries have presented at the six hydrail conferences held around the world. To say hydrail is not widespread is unsupportable. To delete it would impair development of an important new environmentally advanced transportation technology.H S Thompson (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by H S Thompson (talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The "It is a widespread term" entry was unsigned through unintended omission. Signed: H S Thompson (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate "Keep" vote struck out. WuhWuzDat 17:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article seems to be primarily intended to promote the hydrail conferences, which in turn seem to be promoting the newly-coined term "hydrail". --DAJF (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~--The hydrail definition has been on Wikipedia for years. The references to the conferences were only added a few days ago to counter a deletion proposal that asserted the term was little used. Content of the thousands of hydrail references on the Internet show it is serving to enable developers of this Green technology to interact. The conferences are non-commercial and almost all presentations are by scholars and government environmental and transportation agencies. This can be confirmed using the just-added references under "research."H S Thompson (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (redirect to hydrogen transportation or railcar). Self-serving article, apparently aiming to establish a new term using wikipedia and the said conference. The text is far from encyclopedic and possible rewriting would be easier to start from scratch. Materialscientist (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The assertion that the hydrail article is "self-serving" begs the question as to what "self" could conceivably be served and what benefits, other than the societal good cited in the article, could be "served" by it. Viewing the lists of Hydrail Conference presenters in the article's Research references refutes the "self-serving" accusation. Is the disinterestedness of the "Delete" advocates comparably annotated? H S Thompson (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I have struck out the duplicate keep !votes. ONE !vote per editor, PLEASE! WuhWuzDat 06:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There are multiple references that show the notability of this term in the article itself, let alone external to it. It should not have been proposed for deletion in the first place. Please don't waste our time. Francis Bond (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references which show the term being used in IEEE Spectrum and Nature. I think you should withdraw the nomination now. Francis Bond (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has also appeared in the following:

the print edition (not online) of the American Public Transportation Association's weekly newspaper, Passenger Transport: "Streetcar Propulsion: New Technology Up Ahead?" - page 17
The Stanly News and Press (Albemarle, North Carolina): "New alchemy for Badin: Aluminum to hydrogen"
It was in the lead front page print story, with a color photo, in The Charlotte [NC] Observer, probably on July 3, 2006, now online in Fuel Cell Today.

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.