Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euro Quebec Hydro Hydrogen Project

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Euro Quebec Hydro Hydrogen Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Too small a snippet of history to be notable enough to have its own article - no objection if someone merges it if they know a suitable article to merge into Chidgk1 (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I was expecting this to be an easy delete, but on looking for sources: nope, actually there's a ton of stuff out there. I see half a dozen books (e.g.) and dozens of journal articles (e.g.) which discuss it.— Moriwen (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. If anything, it needs expansion to make it more substantial, not deletion. Retroity (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice against a developed article. Nom nailed it. gidonb (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the Google books search actually provides some pretty substantial coverage including whole chapters on the subject. The nom says that Too small a snippet of history to be notable enough (emphasis mine) but I don't agree that's a very valid argument for deletion. Instead, we have to look for notability and I think this clears the WP:GNG threshold. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 00:29, 26 March 2024 (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.