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 Flow battery. Sandstein 15:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Single liquid flow battery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

non-notable battery type. There's already flow battery. There doesn't need to be "Single liquid flow battery" as well. Also very promotional as is. Sam-2727 (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Flow battery. This really is a bloated exercise in promotion (while it's worth noting that most of the refspamming was only introduced today, the text has been in that form from the beginning). If all that was condensed to the NPOV essentials, we'd be looking at one short paragraph. This can easily be accommodated in the main article, along with all the other types covered there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Can this be improved without deleting, since it's a different storage technology? I would genuinely appreciate if anyone can help to improve this article rather than deleting this. I'm Laura, an engineer from western Isles of Scotland and the creator of this page last year. I was a wiki editor for few years. I grew up in Knoydart, which is a remote peninsula and energy came from a small hydro system rather than the main grid, and proud to be the first female electrical engineer to emerge from this remote community:-). The technology used in this article was first tested there and manage to save our community a fortune by not replacing the hydro turbine with a Diesel generator. I thought I should start a discussion about this technology and created this article after obtaining permission from the inventor. It's purely for non commercial purpose. I should admit that I do have an emotional bond with this technology as this was donated to the community and it genuinely helped the community. But I have no commercial intention to promote a company or a product. The technology it self was quite unique as it has only single liquid and had a very simple setup allowing less fortunate remote communities such as Knoydart to easily acquire and maintain it. Having a single liquid makes a massive difference! Other flow battery variants I had come across used two liquids requiring lots of space and lots of auxiliary equipment such as pumps, valves and sensors making it hard to maintain. When I learnt about this, I realised that it's NOT a Flow Battery as the cathode or the anode is not in flow or liquid form, which is the definition of "flow batteries". Instead the electrolyte and part of the cathode is converted to free flowing liquid, making this a different battery variant. It uses solvated electron solution trapped in the anode compartment between the separator and anode current collector, which is clearly a non-flow liquid component (not plating), so this cannot even be classified as a hybrid flow battery. I just noticed that a user called Jamie had edited this and then had deleted "commercially sensitive" section, which has triggered a curator to mark this as AFD. I contacted the user and asked what he did and specifically requested not to add anything which can be promotional or commercial in nature. I have reviewed this article again and have removed any new added sections which I thought was a bit promotional. --Laurawoods1979 (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laurawoods1979, improvement is always preferable to deletion! If you think you can turn this into a well-referenced, neutral treatment of sufficient length to sustain a standalone article, then by all means go for it. You are welcome to work on the article while this discussion is going on - prior versions remain visible in the history for people to look up. Or you can work on it after a merge and suggest splitting it off again later. - Keep in mind however that being merged into a larger article as its own subsection (which I think is what everyone here is thinking of) is not necessarily a bad thing. It puts the topic in context with similar ones, and also makes it easier for readers to come upon it when reading about other stuff. As you can see at Flow battery, the subsections on individual types are quite long, so there's unlikely to be a problem with treating all relevant material in such a section. The only real pressing reason for having a separate article might be if the single flow battery is not actually a flow battery, as you say, but honestly I'm not getting that from your description... certainly sounds more like a flow battery than any other type... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(I suggest keeping all the discussion here rather than on individual talk pages. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@Elmidae:, Thanks so much for the advice, I'll research a bit more and add more references and work done by other research groups on this technology. Laurawoods1979 (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurawoods1979:, something I would recommend is removing the images. They are all from one company, which is one of the reasons I thought this to be a promotional article. If you could provide some sources that indicate that the battery is independently significant from "Flow battery" then it should be kept. Could you try looking for these sources? I tried, but couldn't find any, which is why I nominated the article for deletion. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam-2727:, Thanks so much for the guidance Sam. I have removed pictures with any branding or company names visible. All recently added pictures by the editor Jamie-greenenergy have been removed now. I left the Knoydart flow battery picture as it is, which actually looks like an early prototype rather than a product. I will try to contact the inventor and Dr. Kyle Smith of Strathclyde/St. Andrews university (who first introduced this technology to the community) and see what they think and whether this is a seperate battery type. I heard about couple of other research groups working on this technology, but I think I have to get their permission before mentioning about them here. I'll do a bit more digging and see what I can find. Many Thanks! Laurawoods1979 (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Flow battery. I cannot find much content that can be merged, but I have no prejudice against a merger either, so a short 2-3 liner can be written, and that too, at most. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Flow battery. The sources seem to think this a kind of flow battery. I could not find a source defining a flow battery as having two liquid electrodes and common sense tells me a flow battery is just one where something flows. I think readers are going to want to read about single liquid batteries and the batteries covered by today's flow battery article together, and editors are going to want to edit the material together as well. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2020 (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.