Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SCWR hydrogen cogeneration model

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 merge to Copper–chlorine cycle. v/r - T P 03:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SCWR hydrogen cogeneration model[edit]

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

Original research. Author has admitted (here) that this article is part of his masters thesis. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Although the article has been written in original research, this shouldn't go as far as the article's deletion. The only reason the article should be deleted is if the article's topic is not considered encyclopedic. If it is written from OR and the topic is notable, apply the {{original research}} template. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 17:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The topic is unencyclopedic in that, although hydrogen generation is a notable topic (including hydrogen generation using the copper-chlorine cycle), and certainly SCWRs are notable, the particular marriage of these technologies described in this article appears to exist only on paper in this author's reserch. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete then, per above. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 23:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is not original research, the sources have been published at scientific proceedings and thus are reliable sources. Do you want to reevaluate your position? Diego (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Copper–chlorine cycle, per original proposal at Talk:SCWR hydrogen cogeneration model#Merge proposal. -- Trevj (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since the original author of the article has already admitted that the article is WP:OR, what's to merge? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you misunderstand the original research guideline. It applies to Wikipedia editors making up stuff, not to sources. Master theses are peer-reviewed, so if it is published in a journal or conference it is reliable, and if it has citations by others then it is notable; that the Wikipedia author is also the source author is irrelevant to WP:OR (and a conflict of interest can be dealt with by the other editors which are reviewing the content here). OR then doesn't apply. Has this source been reviewed by other scientists? That's the only relevant question. (The answer is: it has. They were published at Proceedings of the International Conference Nuclear Energy for New Europe). Diego (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources have been published. But the results presented in this article do not appear to have been published, making this an original synthesis of ideas based on previously published facts. That does fall under the definition of OR. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Comment You're right about OR, but wrong about MA-theses. They are in no sense peer-reviewed, and aren't RSs. EEng (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, it can be solved by normal rewriting to keep just the sourced parts, and maybe merged like first suggested. It doesn't require a complete deletion. Diego (talk) 06:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 03:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any non-OR content as proposed above. Appears to be the easiest way of filtering out OR while retaining any useful content. Sandstein 11:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not just delete, per above. The Copper–chlorine cycle article could use some of this information and it is sourced. Iglooflame (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Precisely what information from this article should be merged to the Copper–chlorine cycle article? The information about the CANDU SCWR? That information is already included at the CANDU reactor page. The information about the copper-chlorine cycle being a viable hydrogen generation technology? That information is already included at the copper-chlorine cycle page. The fact that investigations are underway to marry the CANDU reactor to a copper-chlorine cycle plant? That's the OR part! So, what's left to merge? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.