Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shield Condenser


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Shield Condenser

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is promotional about a new technology produced by one company. Technology currently non-notable, only been available for a month, sole reference is the manufacturer's website. CSD was declined, so I'm bringing it here. Frmatt (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Article is promotional"

I just wonder how to write an article about a new technology, describing which problem it solves, without being promotional.

"about a new technology produced by one company."

I do not really understand the difference betwee this and for example Scalable Link Interface.

"Technology currently non-notable"

What does that mean? That it is not important? It is actually very important for people living in areas where temperatures may drop below the limit in the specifications of other freezers (+10°C). As far as I know, this is the first consumer technology that provides a solution.

"only been available for a month"

Yes, the article was from last month. How long should the technology have been available?

"sole reference is the manufacturer's website."

Yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigra (talk • contribs) 06:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC) "I just wonder how to write an article about a new technology...without being promotional" Well, the first step would be to incorporate it into an article such as Refrigerator instead of creating an entirely new article, though it is likely to be deleted from there by another editor as there are no third-party references to it.
 * Comment -

"about a new technology produced by one company." Not my strongest argument, and probably shouldn't have been said.

"What does that mean?...this is the first consumer technology that provides a solution" I'm not saying that it isn't important, in fact as someone who lives in a climate where temperatures of minus forty degrees celsius are considered normal in Winter, I appreciate this technology! What I'm saying is that this technology hasn't yet made an impact that makes it worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. If we had an article for every new technology, WP would be far too crowded. While there is no doubt that this technology exists, the question is whether it is notable or not. Right now, there are no third-party sources (not associated with Electrolux, or just repeats of their press release) about this technology, no reviews, nothing to say that this technology is worth making note of.

"How long should the technology have been available?" There is no specific time limit on how long before new technologies become notable. Some do so almost immediately, others take years. My intention in this statement was that we maybe need to revisit this technology in six or twelve months if it becomes notable.

"...sole reference is the manufacturer's website." Please see WP:SOURCES for information about Wikipedia's standard for sources. While I appreciate the great advantage that this technology can offer people in northern climates (such as myself!), it doesn't currently meet the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. I hope that someday it does, and until that day that you stay around and continue making your contribution to the project. Happy Editing! Frmatt (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete No coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability. --Cyber cobra (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cybercobra.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  18:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this technology. Joe Chill (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.