Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of ocean wave energy conversion systems

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 delete. MuZemike 22:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of ocean wave energy conversion systems

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

The table filled with question marks seems unlikely informative or useful Beagel (talk) 08:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it would have been better to wait to post this until more of the blanks were filled in, but it is only a few days old and it seems likely that sourced information can be found to complete the table. JohnCD (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that the chart at the moments doesn't have much info, but if it is kept it may be improved by the wikipedians, and the filled in article will then have significant value. KVDP (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - KVDP is the article creator, so please take that into account when counting his !vote. GraYoshi2x►^talk 23:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, shouldn't this be in Wave power? Abductive (reasoning) 18:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many question marks hang over this article, literally. Agree with Beagel, in that this table is unlikely to become informative, useful, or notable. Johnfos (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE, specifically, "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator or notifying an associated wikiproject, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." This is clearly not a hopeless case and normal editing can make this a worthy contribution. I had not initially realized that the article creator had made other similar blank charts without intending to add content. Gruntler (talk) 06:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the article creator doesn't know how to fill in the chart. Abductive (reasoning) 18:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A hopeless case. The article creator has abandoned it less than 24 hours after creation, and the only reference is a shady-looking site which is completely unable to help him fill in all the question marks. In fact there probably isn't any other site that would help fill in the gaps. And above all, what good is this? It's not exactly encyclopedic and is only of interest to manufacturers of these things. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A possible topic, but the present article is not worth expanding. DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 05:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Tim Song (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2009 (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.