Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Energy Renewable Measurement

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. postdlf (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human Energy Renewable Measurement[edit]

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

Quite clearly an essay, with an underlying topic that is of...dubious notability. Ironholds (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Easily fails under WP:NOTESSAY. buff bills 7701 21:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deleting would inhibit the sharing of knowledge and ideas. Wiki is not paper, and the subject matter is quite interesting. If the article doesn't conform to Wiki standards, re-write it; don't just arbitrarily delete it. —Terminator484 (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Terminator484: the wiki is not paper, but that doesn't mean that we don't have standards - or that our standards are based around how interesting (or boring) a subject is. In this case, we have two problems; one can be solved by rewriting, as you note, and that is that the article in question isn't really an encyclopedia article - it's an essay containing lord knows how much original research. The second is that said essay may not, in fact, be notable. In terms of coverage under that term (Human Energy Renewable Measurement) I can find some podcasts, and the HERM site itself, but little more than that - and whether the article is rewritten or not, we expect it to conform to the notability policy. Ironholds (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator was most generous in describing the notability of this topic as "dubious". Let's be clear: the topic simply isn't notable. Wikipedia is not a venue for unfettered sharing of knowledge and ideas. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia consisting of articles on notable topics, and necessarily, it must exclude other content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete nothing in gnews or gbooks. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:10, 25 August 2013 (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.