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. MBisanz ^talk 13:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SHPEGS[edit]

Not notable and no reliable sources confirming notability: not in the news, no scientific papers, no books referring to this open source project. From the news section on the project home page it appears nothing is happening for over a year now on this project. Crowsnest (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this was notable there would be plenty of literature on it. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established and what's there lookied like some sort of definition. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This technology is well established as shown in Google Search results. I think there just isn't enough people who understand about the technical details on this topic.

The article has strong potential of being expanded, since the first link even has well established animations. This technology has been on Daily Planet before and was even discuss at the book "The Daily Planet Book of Cool Ideas" --Ramu50 (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Daily Planet: looking for "solar heat pump electrical generation system" at Discovery gives no hits, neither does "SHPEGS" at Discovery. Refining the Google search to the topic, there are about 700 hits, most of which are to wikis and blogs. If this would be an established and promising technology, I would expect substantial news coverage, as on other promising renewable energy sources, e.g. Pelamis wave energy converter.
Regarding Google hits and notability, also see Wikipedia:Search engine test#Notability. -- Crowsnest (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage has been found in reliable third-party sources to establish that this is a notable topic. Google can only point users to references, it can't be used to establish notability based solely on number of hits returned. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:30, 19 November 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.