Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar Electric Power Company


 * 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 no consensus as having met WP:GNG and WP:CORP, and improved per WP:HEY. Specifically, a major article in a newspaper highlights the company, and other independent sources corroborate the evidence. The AfD has been up for over seven days, and the consensus is clear for a keep. Note that no AfD tag was on the article before closing. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Solar Electric Power Company

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This company does not appear to have received any significant coverage in any independent reliable sources. Most of the citations do not even mention the company by name, and those that do do not establish notability per GNG or CORP. Bongo  matic  15:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Cite or Delete To follow up on the nom's comments, only one of the citations refers to this company by name (the footnote pointing to a site called www.tcpalm.com which appears to be an affiliate of the Scripps newspaper group). All other references only cite the fact that solar powered lights exist and are being used, and one citation that the president of the article subject is listed somewhere as the inventor of such lights.  Shorter form:  There's only one citation about the EXISTENCE of this company in secondary sources, much less the broader subject of notability.  If multiple secondary sources regarding notability are not added, this is a clear delete. -Markeer 15:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Some improvement has been made to the article, particularly several citations from green energy websites referring directly to the company. The Scripps citation is the strongest secondary source, and now we have 3 or 4 weaker references to industry sites.  I've altered my non-vote to a weak keep, but I should stress that this is the bare minimum (and very borderline) research for notability.  The underlying concept of WP:N is that a subject should be so evidently notable that citation flows as a natural progression, not needing a hunt for small sources.  That said, while this subject appears to be very small it seems to be involved in some projects interesting enough that some note has been taken, and the demonstration of this has improved.  Good improvement so far, please keep it up. -Markeer 04:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Some changes have been made and I will work on fixing the other issues today Nightflower0709 (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)nightflower0709Nightflower0709 (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I have made many changes over the course of today. Please look them over and let me know if there is anything else that can be done or is required. I will continue to look for sources on the web. There are many print sources, but I am unsure how to get them online for approval. Thanks. Nightflower0709 (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)nightflower0709Nightflower0709 (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete no coverage in gnews for this company. . LibStar (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * News there is coverage; however, it is older. News articles are linked to the company along with other reference material. Nightflower0709 09:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep the number of WP:GHITS, or lack thereof, does not make or break a subjects notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sources currently provided in the article are reliable, third-party publications about the company that demonstrate its notability. -Atmoz (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2010 (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.