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 speedy keep‎. Withdrawal requested by nominator. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of algal fuel producers[edit]

List of algal fuel producers (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)

Wastes reader’s time - they might think from the title that algal fuel is sold commercially Chidgk1 (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is a back-to-front list. Algal oil is definitely a hot topic, and it's reasonable to have a list of companies connected with it, but the nominator is correct that the list is only useful if it provides an entry-point to further information. As a list it should contain predominantly blue-links with the odd red-link where an article really ought to be written. As it stands, it's mostly no-links, with locations wiki-linked to make it look as though there's some blue-linking. If we trim out all the entries that don't link to something, there will be so little left that the list is useless. The existing list has some small merit as a starting-point for anyone who wants to write articles about companies that produce algal oil (or said they would). And it is a collection of 64 sources which is a substantial amount of work to track down. I would much rather see this list converted into what it should be, than deleted. Anyone fancy writing a very large number of articles? Elemimele (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well sustainable aviation fuel is a hot topic, but as I understand it sugar beet is a more likely feedstock as algal fuel was found to be too difficult/expensive. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on my experience at Articles for deletion/Commercial fusion. I didn't realize how big a field commercial fusion had become - there's more private money going into fusion research this year than government money. Fascinated, I started chipping away at all the unreferenced entries as the AfD went on; I'm proud of the finished product: Commercial fusion. I also became more familiar with out stand-alone lists guideline. Sometimes a list will contain mostly entries that don't merit their own articles. The requirement is that they be still be reliably referenced. This allows reliable coverage without 50+ little marginal articles. If a crummy article appears, we just redirect it to the list.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time flagging problematic citations. I'll continue tomorrow. Time permitting, after marking all the existing citations, I'll start searching for better refs. At first glance, some of these seem dinkier and older than the companies on the commercial fusion lists. Some no longer have web sites (I'll delete those) and others have 1990s style main pages. I'm guessing the link will shrink by 50% but we'll see. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - No policy-based reason is given for this AfD. Wastes reader’s time is a long way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It should have been procedurally closed immediately. Since it wasn't: I don't even like list articles, and I have to admit this is one of the best-sourced to come up for deletion in a while, and it actually passes WP:SELCRIT. It passes WP:NLIST and, if it wasn't a list, would pass WP:GNG as well. There is no valid, policy-based rationale for deletion, and it would not improve Wikipedia to do so. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My reason "Wastes reader’s time" was not just because I did not like the article but because it was garbage. Now that the article is being improved thanks to A. B. it will hopefully be useful for readers in future. So I hereby withdraw this deletion request. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I hereby withdraw this deletion request - see above - thanks A. B. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2023 (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.