Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rechargeable energy storage system

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. Perhaps also redirect, but not clear where to from this discussion. Sandstein 18:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rechargeable energy storage system

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

As it stands this article is a WP:DICDEF. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep not a dicdef. And the definition within is of a thing, not of a word. And the thing is a notable technical concept. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it distinct from kinetic energy recovery system? Based on what reliable independent sources? Guy (Help!) 11:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability, no indication that it is a thing rather than a word, as User:Altenmann said above. As far as I can tell, it's just a very specific type of battery. -IagoQnsi (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You got it upside down. This is not a very specific type of battery, but exactly opposite: a very broad type of energy storage, which patent writers love to use, to cover as much ground as possible. For example, in addition to classical batteries, the definition of "RESS" covers capacitor banks and other fancy rocket science gadgets. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As for "no indication of notability", did you try to search google 63,000 hits? Discussion aplenty. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a textbook example of WP:GOOGLEHITS. Providing a single but adequate source would be more helpful... Tigraan (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant bits to Hybrid vehicle#Power This is a term used in the hybrid vehicle field to encompass the many forms of rechargeable energy storage used in these vehicles. A simple Google search shows that the term is verifiable e.g., SAE standard. The term was probably created by GM. While the field of rechargeable energy sources is huge, it isn't clear to me that this term is the mainstream term for it and I have not found in-depth RS discussing the term itself. Nonetheless, it is used in the HV field and I think it fits nicely as at least one of the standard terms used to describe the varied RESS listed in the section Hybrid vehicle#Power, which is just a bare list at the moment. --Mark viking (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, or possibly redirect to some appropriate energy-storage title, but I'm not sure what that would be. As it stands now, this is a classic WP:DICTDEF. It may be an interesting topic, it's just not an encyclopedia article. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2016 (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.