Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar bowl


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Solar bowl

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

seems to be non-notable macbookair3140 (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm unfamiliar with the deletion proces, and have no idea why macbookair3140 would take the trouble to ask for deletion. First of all the Solar Bowl is mentioned in one of wikipedias articles on solar thermal concentrators, but not explained. Second of all it is a distinct, different technology in the solar concentrator with genuine benefits. That is the reason why I created the initial wikipedia entry (under development). I will have a commercial interest in developing the technology, but that is no reason to keep the knowledge from the general public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunreign (talk • contribs) 17:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - on the surface, seems to be a bad nomination. The subject is apparently notable and the article, such as exists at the moment is sourceable and perhaps sourced.  It was nominated for deletion in less than one minute after creation,  The article creator admits to a potential WP:COI, being a newbie, and being unfamiliar with process.  We all remember writing our first article, right?  New editors deserve a little extra slack.  Hopefully they will review their "welcome to Wikipedia" package and look to emulate the methods, style, and tone of some of the better articles they can find around here. There are "templates" you can use to indicate that you are in the middle of an article and requesting a little time - I won't point you to them because it's useful to learn the ropes by climbing them.  I suggest the nominator withdraw the nomination, watchlist it, correspond with the article creator about any concerns, and consider re-nominating it later if they still believe the subject to be non-notable.  - Wikidemon (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep See Wikidemon comment. -Snorre/Antwelm (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, give that article some time to develop.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 21:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - given the newsness of the article, and IEEE paper, it appears it may be sourceable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep content. It's verifiable. Suggest discussing a merge with Concentrating solar power on the appropriate talk pages. -Atmoz (talk) 00:26, 13 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.