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. Kurykh (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power saving devices[edit]

Power saving devices (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)

This article should be deleted as it is does not have "significant coverage" in reliable sources. A WP:BEFORE search revealed ^[1] but that is not enough to be notable under WP:GNG. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 22:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Authors response: I added more references and links to other articles. There is a lot of articles on power saving devices on the web but all are from vendors. Therefore it is important to have a more neutral article about this topic. It can hardly be avoided that it is technical, but it is not more technical than other articles on electrical power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.198.70 (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – per nom. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Although it would be possible to have an article on power-saving devices, this is not that article. It is completely off-topic, a ramble through various power-related themes, and is essentially nonsense. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – there is plenty of good content that could be included in a WP article with this sort of title, and such an article should be brought into existence, but the current content is neither good enough nor likely to be edited into a useful article; this is a bad start for an article. (My biggest problem with this article is not that it is a poor presentation of the material (although this is the case) but that the topic that the originating author has in mind seems to be much more limited that the article title would suggest. The author needs to either start over and write a more general article that matches the title (if this does not already exist in WP) or come up with a more narrow title that more closely matches what they seem to want to cover.)-71.174.175.150 (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2017 (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.