Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rectiverter

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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rectiverter[edit]

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

Promotion. Nothing special about the product, fails WP:NPRODUCT. Störm (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the claim that this is a trademarked product from 2016, it does seem to have been used as a generic term long before this, especially in the period 1930s–1960s. The term probably died out after that and was replaced by uninterruptible power supply (UPS). The device described would more commonly be known now as an "online UPS" or "double-conversion UPS". The only thing unique about this product is that the batteries are not included. There is possibly a genuine article at this title either on historic technology or as a UPS variant, but this piece of promotion ain't it, so I'm going with delete for now. I'm prepared to withdraw that if an editor wants to work this in to an acceptable article not about this one product. SpinningSpark 22:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it looks like promotional material to me.Constant314 (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SpinningSpark. The rectifier-inverter combination is a concept in power electronics, eg.g, [1], and is not novel with this product. The present article is promotional and from the cited primary sources and press releases, looks like original research. --Mark viking (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2018 (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.