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. WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SolaRoad[edit]

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

This bike path is not more than a prototype with no guarantee that it will ever get a wider use. WP:TOOEARLY applies here. The Banner talk 22:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because -

(A) WP:NOTABILITY policy trumps unrated essays like WP:TOOEARLY

(B) WP:TOOEARLY discusses only people and films, nothing else. Certainly nothing about the actual completion of an engineering feat widely reported in international news.

All the articles that are linked at List of prototype World War II combat vehicles
More than 20 articles for "notable" concept cars listed at Concept car, and to pick just one company (Citroën) about 23 articles to their concept car lineup.
Amiga Ranger Chipset
Commodore 65

QUESTION, Is there a reason to delete, other than someone thinks there's a community consensus to strip internationally-reported engineering feats of their NOTABILITY just because they are prototype or proof-of-concept projects? Is that claimed consensus to be found anywhere other than at TOOEARLY?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to tell the world that you wrote this article. The Banner talk 23:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been professional for me to think to mention that, I agree. On the other hand, show me where it says that AFD closures turn on who makes the best ad hominem? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-referenced article about an operating prototype of a notable technology. I read the Phys.org and PC Magazine sources, and they are clearly significant coverage. Mentioning an essay which doesn't discuss this type of article is not a valid argument for deletion. Nor is pointing out that the article's creator favors keeping it, as that is unsurprising and in no sense improper. Thanks to NewsAndEventsGuy for writing the article and defending it here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Generally, people who write articles will defend them from deletion, so that's a non-attack. Also, if this prototype fails, having that recorded here is useful, though later on it would make sense to combine it with other prototype-but-not-quite-there technologies. If we find that PC Magazine's article is simply regurgitating any press release from SolaRoad (which it doesn't appear to be, based just on the images alone, but someone will likely need to vet that) and there don't appear to be any other articles regarding this actual in use thing (which, there are a fair amount based on a quick Google search - and even a case study) then we can delete the article and maybe incorporate its content in some other more general article about roads built with solar panels. I don't see any reason to delete. Maybe combine it because we don't necessarily want to serve someone's advertising purpose here. But generally keep. Hires an editor (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

someone will likely need to vet that I did. At least, I tried to. Same goes for all the sources I used, and there are other sources I did not use which struck me as overly promotional. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NewsAndEventsGuy makes a good argument for keeping the article; the fact that he is the page author does not give me cause for concern. The sources from Phys.org and PC magazine demonstrate sufficient depth of coverage. Notability is not temporary so even if the project fails, the article can stay. Altamel (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I looked at one of the reference in the article [1] and found them mentioning the BBC talked about it. Googling that site I see two BBC articles about it. [www.bbc.com/news/technology-30024883] [2] I think phys.org counts as a reliable source as well. [3] Dream Focus 05:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a news search pulls up multiple secondary sources and coverage over two years. Article needs a lot of work but it is notable. Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets general notability guidelines, and TOOSOON doesn't apply, as the article is about this individual path (or prototype), and the path is actually open. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability standards appear to be met per User:Dream Focus. Article needs improving, not deleting. C 679 10:19, 8 April 2015 (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.