Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soladigm

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. Zad68 (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Soladigm

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

3 year old article of questionable notability. No reliable sources after 3 years and primarily edited by one SPA. Previously tagged for speedy deletion based on lack of notability and recently PRODed by me for the same rationale as posted here. —danhash (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soladigm is the leader of the important emerging field of energy-saving switchable windows and skylights (~$60B industry). Considering the importance of green tech in cutting down energy consumption and green house gases, it appears that this article can be of high interest to green tech industry followers, just as Apple and Microsoft are of high interest to mobile device industry followers, or Calisolar, Sulfurcell, SoloPower (all smaller and less successful than Soladigm) and First Solar to solar cell industry followers. Updates and references were added recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sw.hw.dir (talk • contribs) 19:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this company Soladigm was in stealth mode for the most part of the last 3-4 years. Now that its first products are beginning to be available to the consumers, more noteworthy activities, news, and interests are expected in the coming months. Its investors are among the most well-known in the US: Khosla Ventures, Sigma Partners, and the Westly Group. Khosla, the billionaire founder of Khosla Ventures, is the most prominent green tech venture capitalist. Westly, the founder of the Westly Group, was the Controller and Chief Fiscal Officer of California, USA. He also was one of the top candidates in the Democratic primary for Governor of California in the 2006 election. Per its website, Soladigm's technology seems unique and innovative, with the potential to change the way people conserve energy. These together with other factors should more than meet the notability criterion for this Soladigm Article. —Electrochromismexpert (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG, with significant coverage in the following reliable sources:

Forbes Magazine: Smart Window Maker Soladigm To Manufacture In Mississippi
The Daily News (Memphis, TN): Olive Branch Lands Soladigm, 350 Jobs
CNET: Soladigm lands cash for energy-saving 'smart glass'
Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal: Soladigm raises $9.5M
Reuters: Soladigm Closes $40M for Its First Smart Window Factory

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References establish notability. However article needs a rewrite with the new references added, updating out-of-date info, and a greater clarity about what the company actually produces. I corrected one old reference that had incorrect details, and there may be more. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep Not sure those are good references (at least one appears to be just a rewrite of a regulatory filing), but they definitely make a case for notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References in well-known journals suggest notability. Energy saving products and investors are also notable. Article, however, could be expanded further. CindyMT (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2012 (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.