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 no consensus. There is disagreement about whether the sources are enough to satisfy WP:GNG, and no real consensus for a merge. Please also note that we cannot usually choose "merge and delete", as doing so would violate Wikipedia's content licence. (See WP:MAD.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Open smart grid protocol

[edit]

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

Had nominated for G11, was declined and converted to a prod which was just removed as the first edit of a new account...who seems to speak in edit summaries like the other SPAs editing the article. Language is leaning promotional, and seems to me that this may be some SPA's pet project rather than an informative article on a notable topic. Syrthiss (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no legitimate reason to delete this page. It is a valid and informational page. While I did not create the page, I have investigated Open Smart Grid Protocol (OSGP). In addition, I am an expert in the utility industry having worked with a number of utilities and vendors. The references are all correct. They refer to official international standard bodies that have approved the various OSGP related specifications. This is not a promotional page but informative for utilities and other companies looking for information on smart grid protocols. The only reason that someone may want to delete this page is if their company does not support OSGP. If you feel you have a valid reason to justifty removing the page, please state them. Otherwise, let's remove the comment that this article is being considered for deletion, since this is misleading to the industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLCmentor (talk • contribs) 17:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User: Brenwyn is working for Echelon maker of LonWorks and this article is just adverticing for them, not objective and open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QbeTrue (talk • contribs) 11:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if your statement about Brenwyn working for Echelon is correct or not; however more importantly is that the information on this page is correct and provides information about a protocol that many companies use and support, not just Echelon. For example,Duke Energy,E.ON, Vattenfall, Fortum, SEAS, and many other utilities are using this protocol for their equipment today. So unless you have any evidence that the information is not factual, I believe that we should remove the comment from the wikipedia page that this article is being considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLCmentor (talk • contribs) 02:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Information inside this article is very narrow and single sided. The OSGP is NOT an open group nor is the standard designed by a open group but simply the Echelon LonWorks that has been donated. There are many links and sources were Echelon is stating they have donated lonworks as an open standard. Text regarding security flaws are removed even though the European security standard has been removed since it used RC4 @ 64 Bits. There are basically two standards at this moment: NIST GSIP and OSGP, more than 700 companies support NIST GSIP and its IPv6 based and your telling me that OSGP is the best. You must be joking or working for Echelon.

I think it would be best if ONE standard text is made with both standards making a list with pro's and con's and not a commercial text like it is now. Looking at the smart meter wiki: There is a growing trend toward the use of TCP/IP technology as a common communication platform for Smart Meter applications, so that utilities can deploy multiple communication systems, while using IP technology as a common management platform.[70][71] Other solutions suggest the use of a single, universal connector separating the function of the smart grid device and its communication module.[72] A universal metering interface would allow for development and mass production of smart meters and smart grid devices prior to the communication standards being set, and then for the relevant communication modules to be easily added or switched when they are. This would lower the risk of investing in the wrong standard as well as permit a single product to be used globally even if regional communication standards vary. OSGP is NOT based on TCP/IP but on the Lonworks static protocol. QbeTrue (talk • contribs) 11:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous sources establishing notability quickly found: [1] [2] [3]. Article can be edited to address problems. --Kvng (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone is incorrectly taking exception to the wording of the name that is used on this wikipedia page. Open Smart Grid Protocol is not being used generically but rather specifically to a specification that was approved by ETSI, the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) that produces globally-applicable standards for Information and Communications Technologies (ICT).

Here is the link to the OSGP specification, http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/OSG/001_099/001/01.01.01_60/gs_osg001v010101p.pdf

So again, this page references OSGP, which is an actual approved specfication that is used by many utilities worldwide. Therefore, this wikipedia is justified and legitimate, and should not be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLCmentor (talk • contribs) 03:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC) — PLCmentor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I am seeing variations on "it's useful", "it's notable", and "but it's true!". Just a reminder: the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. The article as it stands contains only primary sources on the nuts and bolts of the protocol. There is little context, and statements like "it is one of the most widely used smart meter and smart grid device networking standards" lack citations. What independent source said that? Braincricket (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold for inclusion of statements in the article is verifiability. The threshold for inclusion of the article in the encyclopedia (what we're discussing here) is notability. The article can be improved by adding references or removing dubious statements but that's generally independent of the decision to keep or delete. --Kvng (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to smart grid. There are plenty of sources out there, but many of them are press releases like this one published by Reuters. Sources that I'm pretty sure are independent include an article by the EE Times, a mention in an article by Transmission & Distribution World, and an article on smartmeters.com which states that Echelon's OSGP technology "holds an 81 percent share of the smart electricity meters installed in Europe". I agree that the article needs editing, especially to add context and cut back the promotional tone. On a side note, I wonder if there are foreign language sources out there, since this seems to be a European thing. Braincricket (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to smart grid, per WP:GNG. A few further sources:[4][5][6][7] -- Trevj (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a merge produce an WP:UNDUE or ((too long)) problem in the destination article? --Kvng (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. I suggested a merge earlier because I thought the article was ((overly detailed)). If it were cut down to < 200 words, then it could fit in smart grid as its own subsection. But that might not be realistic. Braincricket (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Comment I have relisted because both merge and keep reasons are about equal at the moment in my opinion. I would appreciate more input.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After two re listings, two weeks and significant discussion, it is probably appropriate to close without consensus. There are other AfD's to fry. ---—Kvng 19:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then merge smart grid, per WP:GNG. LonWorks == OSGP == ESNA == Echelon. There are three smart grid standards at this moment: [1] SGIP-NIST, USA started in 2009 by Obama. Is a truelly open standard activity backed by nearly 800 companies. [2] SG-SC formed by the SG-TF[8] by command of the European Union, is backed by severel hunderes of companies. [3] OSGP backed by ESNA an organisation started by Echelon and backed by 8 others including universities. Is a completely private initiative not backed by countries. The number of installed devices mentioned in many publications are all installed in Italy, Italy was the first country that between 1998 and 2005 switched to remote metering because of the fraud that took place. Since LonWorks was not accepted by the European commision as being the future network for Smart Grid a new organisation was started (ESNA) to support the marketing of LonWorks at that time already renamed into OSGP a name that is very similar to SGIP. Its better to start ONE smart grid article that will include all forms of smart grid that are in development. I am a participating member of the SGIP-NIST working group and a member of the SG-SC in Europe. My company tried to become a member of ESNA but this was refused since our business is closely related to Echelon's. For people that do not believe me simply do a WHOIS on www.esna.org and look who is the person who registrated the name in 2005, next check who is in the board of directors of ESNA the Echelon boss ?. Uhmm the same name !. QbeTrue (talk • contribs) 16:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No policy reason given for supporting delete. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean should be deleted. -—Kvng 20:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then merge to smart grid. - The source information available is mostly press releases (about 100, including republication of the press releases in different sources). Doesn't meet WP:GNG. A first mention of OSGP is on 8 Sept 2010,[9] so the topic hasn't been around that long and may not meet GNG for a while. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If deletion and merging are being jointly proposed, then doesn't that amount to redirecting after deletion? Once deleted, there is nothing to merge. -- Trevj (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge to smart grid as noted above. Independently, the article fails to meet WP:GNG. Trusilver 16:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page provides information about a specific protocol (OSGP) that is used by utilities in the US and around the world for smart grid applications and services. This page is about the protocol not some generic information related to the smart grid. Therefore is so not be merged but should be kept as its own page. -—PLCmentor —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC) — PLCmentor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The issue isn't that it doesn't provide information, but that it doesn't provide notable content. It's based on press releases, not third-party reliable sources, which means the article cannot accurately adhere to WP:N, because the only thing in the article is PR spin; even ignoring the fact that the article fails the notability guidelines, that makes for a poor article at best. - Sudo Ghost 21:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Press releases and their kin don't do anything for satisfying WP:GNG. I'm not opposed to merging content, but I don't see anything really worth merging. - Sudo Ghost 21:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You either did not notice or are discounting the sources Braincricket listed above. If the latter, please let us know why. -—Kvng 19:51, 21 September 2012 (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.