Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart Energy System

Smart Energy System

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

Non notable system written as a position paper or advertisement. The only apparent reference is their own--the term, of course, is so general as to be unsearchable. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, just to make this abundantly clear at the top of the page, this was recently the subject of a G12 deletion that was overturned at DRV (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 October 16). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Seems to be a promotional article written about a concept. EoRdE6 (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. (full disclosure: I closed the deletion review) -- RoySmith (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
G11 without further delay please.—S Marshall T/C 12:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Smart grid--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not strongly opposed to the redirect, but neither do I think it's needed. This seems an unlikely search term, which is the purpose of redirects. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why you think it is an unlikely search term? The phrase appears to be in widespread use e.g. 1.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my semi-objection to the redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Redirect Smart grid is a electrical system that can detect what is happening to the grid, Smart Energy System is supposed to be a concept of storing renewable energy in the way we store fossil fuels EoRdE6 (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete current article, no opinion on redirect. The recent DRV made the situation extremely clear, with repeated reference to "our page". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~or Speedy delete - I added and removed a G12 tag not realizing it had been done already. Much of it comes directly from this paper, so I don't know why it wouldn't apply.~~ G11 might even apply here, as it's promoting the arguments of a single paper, but regardless it's delete. Also fails WP:GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Deletion Review, copyright permission has been legally granted to Wikipedia through the OTRS system. I don't have access to OTRS, so I'm taking it on good faith that everything was done properly. I do note, however, that the copyright holder is not the author, but (as is typical with scientific journals), it is the journal publisher (Copyright © 2014, AIDIC Servizi S.r.l.). I assume the OTRS folks are savvy enough to understand this distinction and have verified that the publisher has indeed granted permission, not just the authors. Until that assumption is shown to be false, G12 does not apply. That's not to say the article shouldn't be deleted for other reasons, such as G11. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Striking that part of my !vote now. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, G11 would arguably apply, but I think that letting this AFD run to its conclusion would remove any doubt. The article clearly exists to promote a particular product (EnergyPLAN) from a particular vendor. You can't take out an advertisement in Britannica, so why should you be able to take one out here? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as unencyclopaedic promotion. The article entirely fails to demonstrate that there is any underlying concept that cannot be better covered in other existing articles. Slapping a new label on an existing topic doesn't make it a new topic, and labelling something as 'smart' doesn't make it any smarter... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have edited the article to hopefully avoid the self-promoting tone. We would define the Smart Energy System concept as the next generation of the Smart Grid concept, rather than being part of it. The Smart Grid concept focuses on how the electricity sector can accommodate more renewable energy, while the Smart Energy System concept focuses on how the whole energy system can use more renewable energy. Although the final solution is a concept, parts of this concept have already being implement. I can add an example of this if it improves the article? I can add a lot of other material, including references to other researchers promoting the general concept. Our research group (Sustainable Energy Planning Research Group at Aalborg University, Denmark) use the name Smart Energy System, but there is no 'official' consensus yet about what it should be called. For example, another term is Integrated Energy System. Finally, we (the authors, of which I am one) are the owners of the copyright in the online Pdf and we have been in a dialogue with OTRS to verify this.