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 no consensus for any action. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ciudad Real Torre Solar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Ciudad Real Torre Solar is yet another attempt of promotion of the Solar Tower®. For an extensive discussion of this issue, see Talk:Solar updraft tower as well as Talk:Energy tower (downdraft). There have been numerous attempts to promote this technology on Wikipedia pages, apparently trying to influence public opinion to raise money, be it from public or private sources. Looking carefully over the published material one quickly finds out that the energy conversion efficiency of the Solar Tower is far lower than competing solar thermal energy technology, and that the Cost of Energy (cents/kWh) is likely to end up 5x higher than other alternative sources of energy. Now the Ciudad Real Torre Solar is being promoted, an apparent attempt to promote yet another version of the Solar Tower. The only source of information is a blog, AFAIK there are no concrete plans to built one, all there is is a "proposal". So until it is actually built, and in working order this should be considered "promotion", and does not belong in Wikipedia JdH 13:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your trying to rein in the wikispammers, but this AfD nomination sounds dangerously like WP:OR to me. Objections to the cost or conversion efficiency have nothing to do with the notability of the tower in question. If the tower has been seriously proposed, and if it has been written about in reliable sources, it deserves an entry. This looks quite real to me; see e.g. [1] and [2]. These sources should probably be added, but I will leave that for someone more fluent. Keep. bikeable (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think keep the entries, but the current ones may need some serious fixup. Just because a topic is considered pseudoscience by some, or because a method of doing something is not the best(most efficient, most profitable) method of doing something, it does not mean it does not belong to wikipedia. On the contrary - the downsides and current consensus/dissent about the topic should be well presented, so that when one will leaves well informed after reading the wikipedia page on this topic, instead of empty handed (empty-brained?). I my personal opinion think the current pages need some serious balancing from the technical and financial difficulties side, in comparison with other technologies - same goes for the solar pond idea - but that does not mean an article has no place in wikipedia. Sometimes a bad article with lots of warnings is better than no article at all, at least for a start. Go back to the very early history on a lot of articles. Many started with 2 sentences, and were considered bad articles, but after about 3 years they often get nominated to front page. Keep. Sillybilly 00:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article devoted to the technology, see Solar updraft tower. There is no need to expand the present article to describe that technology; that would merely be duplicating what is (or should) be in the other article. The Ciudad Real Torre Solar is about a specific proposal to built on of these in Spain, but is lacking reliable sources to show that it will actually happen. JdH 00:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles talk only about a proposal, AFAIK there is no evidence that funding has been secured, and that actual progress towards its construction is being made. In view of the track record of EnviroMission about proposed Solar Towers that have never been built I don't believe this one either until I actual see it. JdH 16:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-existent and non-notable, as evidenced by the lack of any independent coverage from reliable sources. Valrith 20:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete purely on the grounds that it has not yet been built. It almost certainly will be N if they ever do build it. A great many projects get approved that never get actually built. Not just theirs'. DGG 00:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This stub appears to have been created as part of a commendable project to create articles from all the entries in a website (cited in the external links section) listing the tallest buildings, both proposed and actual. The proposal appears to be encyclopedic to me... People are likely to come here looking for it, even (perhaps especially) if it goes the way of Solar Tower Buronga. We have articles on many proposals that are unlikely to ever be built, see Category:proposed engine designs. Andrewa 02:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is a valid reason for having a separate entry: Wikipedia is not a directory; people can always turn to Google or other search engines if they want to find something on the internet. JdH 15:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As pointed out above, being pseudoscience (or considered as such) is not a reason to delete - it can be nonsense, as long as it's notable nonsense. However, I don't believe non-English language news stories make something notable, and that's the closest it's got to sources. Even if they were English I'd be inclined to suspect that the writers were simply repeating something they heard from a company representative. (That's based on a Google translation - it's hard to tell from a machine translation, but it didn't look like more than regurgitation of company claims). It probably deserves to be deleted, but moderation is good, and a more moderate approach is to Keep and merge with Solar updraft tower. --Chriswaterguy talk 14:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept Merge and redirect with Solar updraft tower JdH 15:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: I don't think we need Babel Fish to tell us what Parece de ciencia ficción means...! No change of vote. Andrewa 03:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't? I do! I speak no Spanish. --Chriswaterguy talk 15:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nor do I. But say ciencia ficción with a put-on Spanish accent (pretend the single "c" is an "s" and the double "c" is an "x") and ask another English speaker what you've said and I think it will come close... (;-> Andrewa 02:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Spanish-language sources non-trivially cover the subject, establishing the notability of the subject. I am shocked by the claim that "non-English language news stories" cannot make something notable! Are news reports written by Spaniards or Latin Americans somehow inferior to reports written by Anglophones? I realise this racist/nationalist sentiment is not what Chriswaterguy intended, but there's really no reason why a source in one language is inherently inferior to a source in another. Merging the limited content of this article into solar updraft tower may be justified, but is an editorial matter for the talk page. -- Black Falcon 04:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pray tell me: If this Spanish language news story were all that notable then why did not a single English language news source bother to report it? I also checked Dutch, German, and French language news sources, and they didn't report it either.
For the record: Chriswaterguy said the following: "... it didn't look like more than regurgitation of company claims" JdH 06:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't news sources in other languages report it? I don't know but that question is irrelevant. I'm sure news sources in Kinyarwanda or Wolof also didn't report the story ... A language is a language. What is relevant is that at least two independent sources have non-trivially reported on the subject (and "looking like" a "regurgitation of company claims"--a disputable claim--is not the same as being a press release). -- Black Falcon 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or merge/redirect to Solar updraft tower if better sources can be found. --DeLarge 10:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No reason has been presented to suspect that these sources are not reliable (they are as far as I can tell) except that they are in Spanish. In any case, I have formatted them as references and incorporated them into the article (slightly expanded). -- Black Falcon 17:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. There is a section in Solar updraft tower on a proposed tower in Australia. This article should be merged into that section as another example of a proposed tower. SkipSmith 18:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely the Solar Tower Buronga will ever be built, since EnviroMission did not get the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund (LETDF) grant from the Australian government. Perhaps we should change the header of that section to "Proposed but never realized Solar Towers". JdH 18:39, 26 March 2007 (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.