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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Powerdriver[edit]

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

A worthy research initiative. But is it notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Research projects are rarely notable and this one is no exception. the article contains the (for this kind of projects usual) exaggerations: for the consortium they list a number of important sounding institutions. The reality of course is that the consortium consists of some people that work at these institutions. The institution signs the agreement, but that it does for every grant./ Compare this with the US where, for example, MIT would sign for any grant that NIH gives to one of its researchers. If that person collaborates with somebody at Yale, that university, too, would sign for its researcher. But obviously nobody would talk about an MIT-Yale "consortium". Apart from that, the article contains the usual dose of (again usual) obfuscating Eurospeak/managerspeak and lofty promises about what it will accomplish. Some of the participants in this project may well be notable. Some of their products may be notable, too. But projects like this go thirteen in a dozen. --Randykitty (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your points about the institutions, that there may be only one or a few people from each institution working on the project, but this is the case with all projects, regardless of which institution they are from. Perhaps adding the results now the proejct is over would help? The technology that this project is working on (energy harvesting) is considered to be a disruptive technology and therefore I believe it is notable. Sarahchallis (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If they developed notable technology, then that could have its own article. Including relevant stuff developed by others. But I see no indication at all that this project in itself is notable. At any given point in time, there will be thousands of such projects going on everywhere in the world. --Randykitty (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounded like a cool research project. But what is not cool is the lack of independent reliable sources covering the project. Furthermore, there is no policy, guideline, or practice to have article for every research project, and I see no reason to change that here. -- danntm ^T _C 05:54, 14 September 2014 (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.