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. John254 23:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this can ever be anything more than a spam magnet. Plus, Wikipedia isn't a mere repository of links, lists of companies, etc. John Reaves 00:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have lots of company lists on WP (see [1]) and I guess any of these could be called a "spam magnet". It would be useful if you could indicate why this particular list is causing a problem. Or are you against all company lists? Johnfos (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it was well managed, I wouldn't have a problem with it. This one lacks claims of notability. No comment on the other ones, I just wish to address the issue at hand. John Reaves 02:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think we should make some improvements to this list and keep it. For example, I think we could have a lead paragraph explaining that photovoltaics is the fastest growing energy technology in the world at present, and that a substantial industry has grown up. And we could open the list with the Top 10 companies, and then maybe include some notable IPOs, and probably weed out some of the non-notable cos. I would be happy to make these sorts of changes if others agree. Johnfos (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If your willing to do that, go right ahead. Just be sure to keep an eye on it. Theoretically any company listed would be wikilinked... John Reaves 03:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious keep provided the article could be rephrased as suggested above to ensure that only noteworthy companies are included. As it stands, the article could end up as a never-ending list. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification Comment The section Other companies states "Other notable companies include..." but with no definition of what classes as notable in the article, you run the risk of any company loosly associated with the technology being included. Tidy that up, and I would be happy to change my vote to lose the word "cautious". StephenBuxton (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although that kind of specific technology companies can't be so well known as some "mainstream" companies, they are notable for the specific sector and therefore the list is worthy to be kept. There is also recent improvements, so hopefully all mentioned problems would be fixed. Beagel (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - highly encyclopedic listing of companies in the fastest growing energy technology in the world. It is no more a spam magnet than any other article. Personally, I believe this is the kind of Article that brings new readers/editors to WP. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "spam magnet" is not and has never been a deletion criterion - David Gerard (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2008 (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.