Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wiki-Solar

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. Sandstein 09:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki-Solar

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Wiki-Solar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Cannot find significant coverage meeting WP:NCORP for this commercial dataset. Most of the links in the article seem to be permanent dead links, but the ones that I could access are promotional, unreliable or just have passing mention. Same for Google search. Was prodded in 2012. Also promotional and in TNT territory, given it's mostly based on information from their own website. Femke (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. Femke (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Why this entry should not be deleted
  Wiki-Solar is the most comprehensive source on utility-scale solar worldwide.
  It is referenced in several Wikipedia pages including Photovoltaic power station.
  I will try to replace the bad links on the page soon.--RaAmun (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  Hello @RaAmun: Thanks for trying to improve the article! The most helpful thing to do is listing the WP:THREE best sources that talk about the topic in some depth, are reliable and are independent of the topic (see these criteria). Afterwards, you may want to remove fluff from the article (like the annual data section, which does not provide much information about Wiki-solar and is sourced almost exclusively to their own website. Femke (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Question Do we have to vote now or could this be held for a couple of weeks to give RaAmun a chance to show it is notable? Which I doubt they will be able to do - sorry - (compare say Global Energy Monitor which has so much press) but should have a chance. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

1. This is not a vote.
2. This discussion typically lasts c. 1 week but can be relisted (i.e. extended) if there's little discussion of substance. I'll give a shot looking into it today, but the sources in the article don't appear to meet WP:NCORP on my first run through.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

OK yes it would be better if others commented to get a wider range of opinion - but if you want me to comment further let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: the article was created by an account called WikiSolar (talk · contribs), so possible COI originally. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. Read through the article and have some rough thoughts. Mostly citations from itself, and non-self citations are just citing Wiki-Solar. The three citations after "used by many industry authorities" (Bosmans, Louwen, and Kumar) only reference Wiki-Solar without giving information on it. I think this is WP:OR, and they are not adding to the sigcov part of GNG. Another OR part is with Cheyney, saying that it "avoids the issue", referencing said issue, and connecting to Wiki-Solar's decision separately. Solar Zerp and Agarwal et al. also merely reference it. OR again. In general it's a no-go. SWinxy (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2022 (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.