Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SALt lamp


 * 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 keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 16:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

SALt lamp

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Item may not meet WP:GNG. I can't find hits for this product, only for the Himalayan salt lamp Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. Fixed the article with its sources. Is it notable enough to be in Wikipedia? That's up for evaluators to decide. I just edited with my very limited Wikipedia editing skills.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , well I think it requires more mainstream coverage to pass WP:GNG. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * True. It was mentioned only once during the visit of Obama in the Philippines during a talk in a Climate Change discussion and that's all. I checked how it works and I even found out the saltwater acts as the electrolyte and not as the power source. I'm not really good with electronics though so I do not really understand how the mere presence of saltwater in the lamp makes it a saltwater lamp. Sorry, I digressed.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets WP:GNG easily. I mean, to start with, Obama held an event with the inventor, talking about this (mentioned in the New York times and Mother Jones), but also Huffington Post, Haaretz, ABS-CBN, ABS-CBN, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Asian Scientist, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Philippine Primer, Philstar, The Straits Times... &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 03:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , well the New York Times article only start about the said election about halfway through and only in 3 paragraphs. It just say Obama held a panel with the said inventor.


 * Mother Jones is a blog.


 * Huffpost and ABS-CBN seem legit. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 09:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's true that the NYT article only talks about this in a relatively small aprt of the article. Hence why I said "mentioned in" before listing the more substantial sources. Just a note on Mother Jones, though. Being a blog doesn't disqualify something. See, for example, the Mother Jones entry at WP:RSP. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 13:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , eeehhh.... I think it could just about scrapes GNG. Also, almost all the sources are from the Philippines or Asia so I could see a particular bias. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at this AfD and I'm curious to hear how justifies seeing a "particular bias" in the sources just because they're from the Philippines or from Asia. Given the global nature of the English Wikipedia, how is it that a U.S. or UK source is automatically presumed to be "less biased" or "more reliable" than a Philippine or Asian source, just because it happens to be a source the commenter is more intimately familiar with. --<b style="color: #0066ff">Sky Harbor</b> (<b style="color:#0066ff">talk</b>) 00:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , well bias as in the event happened in the Philippines so naturally, local sources will cover it, even if the event is small and not significant. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * By whose standards are you determining if something is "small" and "not significant"? We have Wikipedia articles for events, places and things in the UK that, on the whole, are less significant but exist because those sources are automatically presumed to be "reliable". So just because this happened in the Philippines, we're automatically presuming that this is isn't significant just because local media is the only one covering it? --<b style="color: #0066ff">Sky Harbor</b> (<b style="color:#0066ff">talk</b>) 17:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, new revelations through Rhodendrites show that the article meets the requirements set in the general notability guidelines. Utopes (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, Per the above. --SalmanZ (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.