Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cycloidal Wave Energy Converter


 * 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.  Sandstein  14:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Cycloidal Wave Energy Converter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

not yet notable,as the last paragraph indicates. It hasn't been show feasible, let alone actually put in operation. But it was accepted from AfC  DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

There exists peer reviewed publications (references 4 and 5 on this page) on this topic which show the feasibility of this concept based on laboratory experiments and numerical simulations. This makes this article meet Wikipedia's Notability criteria. For a scientific concept as covered on this page, no notability requirement exists in the Notability criteria stating that the concept has to be proven in an actual application Stefansiegel (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Notability not shown. WP:Crystal ball. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC).

None of the content on this page meets any of the criteria of WP:Crystal ball. Instead, all of it is based on peer reviewed publications as stipulated in WP:Notability. This article does exactly what the main purpose of Wikipedia is: Publish verified and externally validated information in a format accessible to the general public. Stefansiegel (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * but all that is verified is the experiments, there are no demonstrated practical installations. From what you say and what is in the article there are not even pilot implementations. When there are real world applications, there should be an article. DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete due to lack of significant independent coverage. --Michig (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.