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. Consensus here is clear for article retention. Regarding a potential page move, page split, etc., discussion of such can continue on the article talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Roadways[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

NOMINATE FOR DELETION This article is not about the product or concept. This article amounts to nothing more than an extended free advert for Solar Roadways Inc. The article contains only unsourced marketing claims along with links to a crowd-funding site and the company's website. The company is non-notable. GornDD (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC) — GornDD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I think that it should not be deleted. There does need to be clarity on whether the article refers to the solar roadways, the company and their specific design, or to solar roadways in general, and the various forms they take. Some of these are touched on in the following document: Energy Saving Design and Materials in Road Transport — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyltong (talk • contribs) 12:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the external link to the company's crowd-funding page as it served no article-related purpose other that to raise funds for the private company. GornDD (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've started improving the article by removing content related to the private company [1]. I think that this article can be saved. If it is kept, it should be moved to Solar roadways or Solar roads. — goethean 19:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per goethean. I think this can be rewritten as a more general article on the various smart highway (that is the name I would use for the article) proposals under consideration - including Solar Roadways Inc in one section. filceolaire (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is, per nom - as it stands it is "nothing more than an extended free advert for Solar Roadways Inc." On the other hand, if filceolaire and/or others go ahead and create a new smart highway article, then some material may be salvaged from this and merged into that. --Nigelj (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Move to Solar roads ~~I concur fully with the nominator's reasoning and with User:Nigelj's reasoning.~~ If the article survives this AfD, ~~however,~~ move the article to Solar roads. Make it about the concept, not the company. Safiel (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick Google search comes up with plenty of RS, but the article will need to maintain NPOV and not serve as an ad for the one company. PaintedCarpet (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I stand by my original nom to Delete this particular article as it is primarily an advert for Solar Roadways Inc. I have no opposition to the article being rewritten and moved to Solar roadways or Solar roads, or possibly being included as a proposed road type in an article on smart roads. However, after a thorough Google search, I was only able to find articles all eventually leading back to one single company making unsourced marketing claims for the purpose of seeking funds to move past the prototype stage. As such, the technology itself seems nothing more than a non-notable panacea - applied phlebotinum, if you will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GornDD (talk • contribs) 19:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. If there's nothing really going on in the real world, apart from this one small company spreading hype to raise funds, there's not much more to do. --Nigelj (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my comment on the article talk page I listed 4 other topics that could be included, with Solar Roadways Inc., in a smart roads article. I'm sure there are more but that was all I found in 10 minutes. I agree that only Solar Roadways seems to be proposing using roads for solar power generation. The others have other approaches. filceolaire (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per user:Nigelj. No prejudice on creating smart roads. Beagel (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per goethean & filceolaire. → Aethralis 20:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least move - at least some people are using this article to justify a circular argument that this "technology" is valid and legitimate despite there being no evidence of such (it's on Wikipedia therefore it's real). (I can cite myself as evidence of this, having been linked here by someone trying to prove this story is true, rather than commercial propaganda ;)) --N7n (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the company's claim to have received a $750,000 grant from the Federal Highwy Administration is true, that might make them notable, but I don't see any third party corroboration of that. Also, regardless of the decision to keep or delete, I think the current redirct of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_road to this page is not reasonable. The concept has been in fiction for 50+ years and there are already existing implementations that pre-date this particular company. For example: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/OIPP/pages/inn_solarhighway.aspx It makes no sense to redirect a thing that's been around for a while to this particular organization. 68.228.89.42 (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am new to this, but I found the SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) link to their grant awards (http://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/355952). I will add it to the article. Duronx (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no consensus to delete but if you think there is then could the current article be moved to the WP:draft namespace where we can work on rewriting it? filceolaire (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of reliable sources in quick google search. Wholesomegood (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update I added some references to this article from both CNet and the Washington Post. News.[2] Wholesomegood (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The CNet article you cited is basically nothing more than a puff piece which encourages people to donate to the company's crowd-funding page and only cites Solar Roadways Inc's company website. So, now what we basically have is a free advert (WP) that cites another free advert (CNet), which is really just a fundraising ad. All of the other sections in the WP article remain unsourced marketing claims that should be removed unless independent sources can be cited. While the FHA grants and awards and nominations from GE, the World Technology Award, Google and the IEEE Ace Awards, etc... might make the company notable (I will leave that to consensus to decide), what we are left with is really more appropriately mentioned in a section of a general article on smart roads. The vast majority of the Google results I researched all ultimately refer back to the company's website, or cite other sources which only cite the company's website. It's basically a walled-garden of sources all leading back to a single source - Solar Roadways Inc. GornDD (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wired magazine has an article about it [3] as do others. It easily passes WP:GNG. Any problems with the article should be discussed on its talk page and dealt with through normal editing practices. Dream Focus 11:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, the Wired article you mention, like the CNet article above, cites no other sources besides Solar Roadways Inc itself (and, once again refers to the company's crowd-funding page). WP:GNG usually requires reliable secondary sources, meaning original sources other than the company itself. CNet, Wired, and other publications have thus far not cited any sources (secondary or otherwise) other than the original source - Solar Roadways Inc - which has a clear COI when it comes to the material. They are understandably trying to raise funds to move beyond a prototype. But this WP article, as well as the other articles cited are nothing more than an advert for Solar Roadways Inc. Once they move beyond a prototype and actually start selling a RW product, presumably sources other than themselves will arise. But, as it stands, all source branches trace back to one company trying to promote a product and raise funds. GornDD (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are a new user with no edits except about this article you are trying to destroy. [4] I have been on Wikipedia for over seven years now, with tens of thousands of edits to my name. I know how the WP:GNG works, and this clearly meets the requirements. Dream Focus 04:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've "been on Wikipedia for over seven years" and your first response when someone has a differing opinion than you is to bash the noob? Not, "The guidelines say this..."? Instead you go with, "You're a noob, get lost..."? Congrats, you set set a great example and really encourage new editors! Were ALL of those "tens of thousands of edits" writing free adverts with unsourced marketing claims for companies seeking crowd-funding as well? GornDD (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You tried correcting me as though I didn't know, and I pointed out it is you who is clueless. Go read WP:NOTABILITY if you don't understand how things. Wired magazine and others are what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. If they cover something then it makes it notable under the general notability guidelines. If they state something as a fact, then we can reference that information to them. Dream Focus 23:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to "correct" you, I was just offering a different opinion than yours. The trouble with all the media coverage, is that virtually all of them say "Solar Roadways says..." or "Solar Roadways claims..." without citing any secondary sources. Just because I announce that I own a company that will be making phlebotinum, and a bunch of media sites write articles saying, "GornDD has a plan to make phlebotinum and he needs funds" doesn't suddenly make phlebotinum (or me) notable. There might be an argument that the *media coverage* of my claim is notable, but I don't see how an announcement of a future product that doesn't even exist yet is notable. None of those sources say something is a fact. They all say "Solar Roadways says it's a fact." GornDD (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment needs rewritten, to focus more on the concept, rather than the company, right now, maybe. Though, if it takes off like everyone hopes, we will need a separate page for the company eventually.--VikÞor | Talk 15:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the article, as written, seems to serve primarily as an advert for the company that produces the prototype. Nevertheless, I believe that the idea is important enough that its deletion would be socially irresponsible. The article does need to be re-written however, to conform to Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines, and perhaps with an eye towards a critical examination - by somebody who's qualified - of the claims of potential total power generation. ScouterMick (talk) 04:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has been mentioned on dozens of news websites and has two contracts with the US federal government. As with nearly any page, it could use additional work. MatthewM (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am curious to know what other source, besides the company in question, could be available to comment on the performance of any un-released prototype technology? Any third party testing/certification group would not have access to the device yet. I do believe someone should find awarder-side (as opposed to awardee-side) proof of the various awards and grants they have received. Ch4terbu9 (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ch4terbu9; Only the company itself, as you have pointed out, could be the sources for info on proposed products. Wikipedia policy in those cases is to limit the space devoted to vaporware products until they are actually available (see WP:Crystal) and, where info from the company is included, to frame it as "Solar Roadways Inc. claim that their product will be able to..." rather than presenting such claims as facts. My interpretation of WP policy is that there is probably is enough articles about Solar Roadways Inc. to justify an article about the company but an article on the general topic of smart highways would probably be more useful. An article (like this one) that pretends to be about the general topic but is really just a puff piece for the company needs rewriting. At least that is my interpretation of our policies. filceolaire (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The concept and the company are the same thing. All coverage is for what Solar Roadways the company has done. All the awards and grants go to them. http://www.solarroadways.com/intro.shtml Kindly stop removing information about them. You can not find coverage of anyone else doing this. Dream Focus 09:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The company has been covered in multiple reliable sources. The sources are top-tier like Washington Post and Wired with international scope. -- GreenC 13:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional coverage over an extended period of time (2009-2014):

Christian Science Monitor (2014)

Comment - This article cites no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc) and refers people to the company's crowd-funding page GornDD (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sources are not expected to cite their own sources. 2. How and where a company raises capital is normal business news. -- GreenC 00:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Times of India (2014)

Comment - This article cites no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc) and refers people to the company's crowd-funding page GornDD (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same reply above for the rest. -- GreenC 00:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Post (2014)

Comment - This article cites no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc). NOTE: It does cite the CNN article listed below, which in turn, cites no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc) and refers people to the company's crowd-funding page. GornDD (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News (2014)

Comment - This article is actually video resembling a marketing video and cites no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc) and refers people to the company's crowd-funding page GornDD (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HNGN (2014)

Comment - This article cites no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc). NOTE: It does cite the CNet article mentioned previously as well as a CityLab, which in turn, cite no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc) and refer people to the company's crowd-funding page. GornDD (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Business Insider (Australia) (2014)

Comment - This article cites no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc) and refers people to the company's crowd-funding page GornDD (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Business Standard (2014)

Comment - This article cites no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc) and refers people to the company's crowd-funding page GornDD (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CNN (2014)

Comment - This article cites no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc) and refers people to the company's crowd-funding page. GornDD (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outside (2014)
NBC (WBIR) (2014)

Comment - This article cites no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc) and refers people to the company's crowd-funding page GornDD (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Der Spiegel (2013)

Comment - This article cites no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc) and refers people to the company's crowd-funding page GornDD (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The West Australian (2013)

Comment - This article cites no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc) GornDD (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today (2013)

Comment - This article is primarily about various road maintenance techniques, but does give a one-paragraph mention to Solar Roadways Inc, and quotes the owner as saying he hopes to begin manufacturing in 2014. It cites no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc) regarding the technology. GornDD (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-- GreenC 13:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that this article was renamed to be about the Idaho company by name on 12 May, the same day that their press release was published in Business Standard, CNN etc above. Their Indiegogo fundraising campaign is due to finish at the end of the month. They say that "Due to our Indiegogo campaign, we are getting absolutely overwhelmed with emails and there is not enough time in the day to respond to everyone. We're really backed up and we're sorry for the inconvenience!" I guess if this AfD goes on for another week, the renamed article will have served its purpose. --Nigelj (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It says (Chadlupkes moved page Solar roadway to Solar Roadways: Solar Roadways is a company in Idaho, and most of the content is about that company.) The article started as a redirect then was edited to be about that company starting back in 2009‎. On May 21st 2014 Goethean removed information about the company with the edit summary (rm content related to private company) [5] I put some of that information back in. I find no information about anyone else doing any work on this. Does anyone ever use the term "solar roadway" when talking about anything other than what these two created? Dream Focus 18:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article did start as a redirect, but it was called Solar roadway. For a long time it was about the general concept, e.g. [6] and [7], apart from a few occasions when it became overloaded with information about this company, e.g. [8] and [9] Regarding other projects in similar fields, an IP editor above has provided a link to work in Oregon and I just turned up this UK project. I don't know what the threshold for WP:N coverage of a small private company is, but I doubt if having consumed two grants totalling less than $1m over several years, with no other known turnover, makes it. Equally, if these other projects are now moribund, and there really is no other organisation in the world known to be working on anything like this, then again we have an argument for a non-notable concept. --Nigelj (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both of your links to the old article mention Solar Roadways in them. The longer one mentions the government grants going to them, and is clearly all about their work. The link to the Oregon page you provide is about something totally unrelated called a solar highway, it just regular solar cells along side the internet state, not actually ontop of a road. The second thing you link to is about gathering heat from a material put over the roads, not about making electricity from solar cells. Dream Focus 11:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. In the case of this product, this company has never produced anything beyond a single prototype. Virtually every single claim about the product in the article is nothing more than unsourced marketing claims produced by Solar Roadways Inc itself. If all the unsourced "facts" are removed, the article is then nothing more than a one paragraph article about a non-notable company that has never actually produced a product.

To be clear - I have no objection to the article being rewritten and saved. I just don't want to see a free advert for this company to raise funds and un-encyclopedic content. If there are any reliable secondary sources that can verify the content, then it is a simple matter to rewrite the article and add references. Despite having spent hours searching the Interwebs, I haven't found a single reliable secondary source to reference that don't simply rely on Solar Roadways Inc's website or founders for their info. GornDD (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe every newspaper and magazine covering them somehow got their information wrong? That those giving them grants and awards didn't verify their claims first? Dream Focus 23:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of thinking they got anything "wrong", it's just that every article basically amounts to nothing more than an advert for one single private company seeking funds for a product that it admits it "hopes" to manufacture sometime in the future. Virtually every article can be summarized as saying, "Hey here's this amazing future technology that this company needs funds to make! Isn't it amazing?!" Every claim about this future technology in the WP article is unsourced and unreferenced with no secondary sources. I have already acknowledged that because they did get a grant that *may* make the company notable. But the WP article should sound less like a free advert and have a more NPOV with reliable secondary sources. This whole thing STARTED with me researching this technology and not finding a single reliable secondary source that doesn't rely on the company's unverified marketing claims. Believe me, I wish there were... GornDD (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Comment As a regular Wiki user, I was looking for a balanced summary about generic "Solar Roadways" and this article indeed gave me a balanced view of it. A company probably wouldn't want it mentioned that their product required more maintenance. Didn't seem like an ad for one company to me. Genepoz (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am a student and I was looking for reliable information about this technology for an upcoming assignment. Without this article, I might have received biased and/or unreliable information, which would have greatly hindered my project. Plus, I was interested in the details of solar roadways as it is because it's an amazing leap forward and I wanted to familiarize myself with it in order to spread the word... This was a short but valuable article, and instead of deleting it, it should be expanded as the industry grows. Not having sources available for reading could hinder the advancement of the technology. Furthermore, the people who said that it seemed like an extended advert for the company forget that having a page for a product like this is informative and most certainly will advertise, intentionally or not, and it doesn't have to be a bad thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.228.215.242 (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as advertising goes, policy says otherwise. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not advertising. Look at any the thousands of articles for companies for example of what they are suppose to look like. Dream Focus 11:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and don't see anything at the end of the articles that says "press release" or "this article sponsored by" or "paid advertisement" - they are legitimate news sources. -- GreenC 14:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This, in journalism terms, is called a "puff piece" or "vanity piece". GornDD (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. This is legitimate professional coverage of a company and its technology. Dream Focus 17:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly coverage of a company and its vaporware. Professional? No. Professional coverage would have included references to sources other than the company itself and links to their crowd-funding page. Call it what it was - an advocacy piece, with nothing more than unproven marketing claims. GornDD (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs work to be NPOV and well referenced. This is about good idea, a potentially transformational technology, of unproven feasibility and practicality. The technology needs a road-test, and the Wikipedia entry needs editing, not deletion to be genericized to keep the inventors' corporate footprint off the content and perspective of the entry in Wikipedia. There's enough promotional material that can be identified as that & linked, that the entry itself can be edited into a useful resource of a notable idea in the development and application phase of introduction. Look at the SUT page, which changed from an idea, and a company-centred entry, to a proper Wikipedia entry over time. BCameron54 10:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete — All of the many stories in the press are traceable back to claims made by the company. They haven't released any real numbers and don't have a product. This is all just hype. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have guidelines that say a company has to "have numbers" or "have a product" before they are notable (and they do have a product). Notability is determined by the press (sources). Of course the information reported by the press is the same given by the company, that's normal business news. There is also information in the sources not reported by the company, original journalism. -- GreenC 14:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article has been substantially improved with references and a better NPOV since I initially nominated this article for deletion. I would also venture that the fact that they have received multiple Federal grants, most likely makes them notable and deserving of a *brief* NPOV article (probably, more suitably, a small section regarding the grants and solar roads in an article on smart roads). I admire your fervor in promoting this company and it's technology, however I would like to disagree with some of your assertions. First Wikipedia DOES have guidelines regarding whether or not a company that has never produced a product is notable. Wikipedia policy in those cases is to limit the space devoted to vaporware products (a product that is announced months or years before its release, and for which public development details are lacking) until they are actually available (see WP:Crystal). In this case, the company is still crowd-funding to even BEGIN producing the product, and itself admittedly "HOPES" to begin production this year (assuming they receive the required crowd-funding). Furthermore, this company offers only one single future vaporware product. This is not about Apple (a notable company with many notable products) announcing a future product, this is about an (otherwise) non-notable startup company seeking crowd-funding for a single future product. As a second point, I read many of the articles mentioned above (the ones I commented on) and didn't see much, if any, "original journalism", they mostly were essentially "Solar Roadways Inc says..." or "Scott Brusaw claims..." and included no other sources than the company's website and/or a link to their crowd-funding page. The problem with this article as it was originally written is that no sources or references were listed for the many unsourced "facts" in the article. Information should not be listed as "facts" unless there are reliable secondary sources (not just the company's claim) to verify it. When the only source is the company itself, the article shouldn't read, "Solar roads can produce 3.5 times the annual energy usage of the United States." Rather, it should read, "Solar Roadways Inc claims that its solar roads can produce...", with an appropriate reference. Additionally, referencing (for example) Wired Magazine as a source for that claim, when the magazine article simply says, "Solar Roadways Inc says..." without reliable secondary sources, amounts to nothing more than company hype. GornDD (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do find it interesting that the same users who, on this article's talk page, say, "You don't have any information about solar roadways that isn't connected to this company.", then turn around and, on this page, contend that there is apparently voluminous information from many reliable sources about this vaporware technology that is notable and verifiable. I'm looking at you Dream Focus. GornDD (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Out of context. In the discussion for the name of the article, I pointed out there is nowhere that mentions "solar roadway" as solar cells as a road that isn't talking about this company and what they are doing. So there is no confusion about the articles name. And if it was vaporware, it wouldn't have gotten government grants. WP:NOTABILITY clearly states a subject is suitable for a Wikipedia article if it passes the general notability guidelines, which this one clearly does, as it gets significant coverage in reliable sources. Kindly read that and WP:RS. Dream Focus 18:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Vaporware" is a product that is announced months or years before its release, and for which public development details are lacking and/or never actually released. By your own admission, this product has never been released (never even made it past the prototype stage in 7 years of "development" and federal funding) and very limited details have been released. GornDD (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: allthough this research is in its infancy, global warming is one of the most important issues of our time. deleting this article now would be like deleting articles about electric cars 15 years ago because the idea is impractical. Saverbox (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to an extent. I think the best solution is an article on the proposed technology of smart roads with limited mention of Smart Roadways Inc as one of the companies hoping to develop this technology (assuming enough independent sources can be gleaned to put together an article of the topic). In the alternative, a "smart roads" subsection in an article on smart roads, subject to those same standards.

Seeing that Smart Roadways Inc has received a small amount of Federal funding to develop the technology and some notability in the press, it probably deserves a *brief* NPOV entry of its own. HOWEVER - Seeing that in the 7 years since this company has been founded and received Federal grants, it has yet to move past the prototype stage, its worthiness as its own WP entry is tenuous at best. By the company's admission on its own website, it hasn't even "completed our evaluation of prototyping costs, but will be doing so in July, 2014". It's vaporware at best, at this point. GornDD (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BTW, the company got all the ****ing money they were spamming for, http://betabeat.com/2014/05/solar-roadways-reaches-full-funding-to-transform-america-into-tron/ so those here purely for that purpose can lay off. In any event, I would continue to prefer an article about the concept, with minimal references, at least for now, to the company. Safiel (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no concept that isn't connected to this company. Can you find even one reliable source talking about it? All previous search results for "solar roadway" were for either this company, or something totally unrelated such as roads heated by the sun, or solar cells on the side of interstates, as discussed previously in this AFD. Dream Focus 20:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then, if that's the case, and there really is no other company in the world known to be working on anything like this, then again we have an argument for a non-notable concept that (at this point anyway) amounts to nothing more than vaporware. GornDD (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please read WP:NOTABILITY already? The coverage the company gets means it passes the WP:GNG, and therefore is notable by Wikipedia standards of inclusion. Dream Focus 21:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have. Several times. I especially enjoy the part where it says, "Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability: Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article.". The vast majority of the cited coverage amounts to nothing more than product placement in promotional articles with links to a crowd-funding site. (Congrats on raising your needed funds, BTW). I assume you yourself have read the parts of WP:ORG where it says things like, "Coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." and WP:SOAP, where it says, "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable."

You are still left with the fact that a otherwise non-notable, two-person company that is so obscure that editors are unable to even verify if it is incorporated or not, has in seven years, despite receiving federal funding, has not moved past the prototype stage of it's one single vaporware product that is only associated with that one single non-notable company. Virtually every article written about is either (a) a non-verifiable promotional piece seeking crowd-funding, whose only source is the company itself or, (b) somebody skeptical of said claims due to (a). Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability: Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Just because a few places wrote promotional articles seeking crowd-funding for this non-notable company's vaporware product does not make it notable. GornDD (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are quoting something out of context. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. Bolding the part you seem to be left out, when quoting the bit before it. It wasn't trivial coverage, but detailed information in those news articles. And more than a "few" places wrote articles about them, and these were not promotional articles. As for your selective quoting of WP:ORG, it actually states An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.. You took part of a sentence totally out of context. Dream Focus 04:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm from the UK and came to wikipedia looking for information on solar panels used as road surfaces. This article was very useful, so should be keep and allowed to be updated and improved over time. It seems I'm far from the only one looking for wikipedia articles on this topic, so it suggests it's got potential as being a really useful and relevant article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.239.251 (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PROPOSAL TO Dream Focus - You and I clearly have different opinions and are unlikely to change each other's minds and come to an agreement. Seeing as we have rehashed the same arguments several times, how about we each agree that, barring some inherent need or new information, to refrain for further debate so as to allow OTHERS to add to the discussion and hopefully reach a consensus? Does this work for you? GornDD (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. You respond to something I say, I'm going to respond back. Especially when you quote things out of context, and keep stating incorrect information constantly. Dream Focus 03:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are just incapable of editing without a bias. YOU and ONE OTHER PERSON does not constitute a "consensus". I was trying to avoid this becoming just a prolonged, lengthy debate, and allow others to comment without rehashing the same useless argument that we will never agree on. PLEASE DON'T EDIT WAR. GornDD (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article about the company because sufficient RS exist. Ideas on how to improve the article belong on its own talk page, not here. --В²C ☎ 23:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I came to this article in order to verify or discredit information in a sensationalist video promoting Solar Roadways. I think that an article providing objective information on this topic is useful, and there are few other sources on the internet to which someone can look for it. 76.242.155.53 (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both articles / fork as needed - both subjects pass WP:GNG, work out any WP:COI issues on article talk pages please. As with any new technology which is not limited to 1 company (as this in broad picture isn't) we require two articles, one on Solar Roadways and one on solar road panels. It may well be that some of the sources such as Public Roads 2011 Volume 75 - Page 10 "An ongoing SBIR project with a small business located in Idaho is developing a prototype for solar road panels. The idea is to create a driving surface built out of solar panels that collect the sun's energy and generate electricity. This project ..." may end up in both articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a potential for this article to go too much NPOV if not written correctly (this article, for example, could use a section on its "reception" or some type of sourced advantage/disadvantage section from third-parties, to separate that all out from first-party), but the topic is definitely notable and widely covered. Note that unless there's other companies making/planning "solar road panels" that article should not exist but be a redirect to this one until such a time there are multiple such products out there. --MASEM (t) 05:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Masem I'd agree except solar paving has been around for 10 years already in Europe. I presume the photovoltaic technology used on Dutch bicycle paths and pedestrian precincts is more conventional than what this Idaho company is proposing, but this US company isn't first or only. I can't see the substantial difference between paving a Walmart car park and a Dutch bicycle track, in generic terms it's the same thing. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, solar paving is a redlink? The amount of bytes in this discussion on the Idaho company could have produced a decent stub for the Dutch projects already. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if that's the case (that Europe's done it, which comes as no surprise), then yes, the topic of solar paving is likely a potential article on its own, in addition to this specific venture's article. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Split (1) Instead of "solar paving" suggested above per WP:NOUN split part to Solar pavement which is broad enough to cover parking areas, sidewalks, patios, and of course roads. The concept is in enough RS to easily pass WP:NOTABILITY test. (2) Also create Solar Roads, Inc and let advocates for that article take another crack at establishing that the company is notable, after the split has happened. Do not confuse objectionable promo/advert complaints with the notability test. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is "Solar Roads, Inc."? Never heard of that, is that another company? What is "solar pavement"? Is that a term used? -- GreenC 15:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~If you haven't heard of the company, then you haven't studied the article (at least at the time the AFD was filed) and have not read the RSs cited by it.~~ Make that [[solar Roadways, Inc]]. My bad. And yes, "solar pavement" is in use, for example "Walkable solar pavement debuts at George Washington University"NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would have problems with "solar pavement" in that the term pavement means radically different things around the world. —Phil | Talk 15:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with ignoring WP:NOUN and using Solar paving for the time being. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the kind of AFD which embarrasses Wikipedia: when people want to look up information on something which is hitting the news, we want them to be able to come here and get a balanced account. I am also having trouble ignoring the fact that the nominating account appears to be a recently-arrived single-purpose account: first edit was 6 days ago creating this nomination. —Phil | Talk 15:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes I am "recently arrived". It probably got lost somewhere in the mish-mash above, but I clearly stated that this whole saga started when I was researching the concept of solar roads. Coming here I found the solar roads article to actually be just an advert for Solar Roadways Inc - certainly not a "balanced account". It consisted of: a very nice biography of the Brusaws, a lot of amazing unsourced claims about the wonders of their (vaporware) invention, and a link to their crowd-funding site. (Admittedly, the article has been much improved since my nomination). I was bothered so much by WP being used for the purpose of free advertising for this vaporware that I took the time to actually register with WP and nominate the article for deletion. Since that time, I have begun editing the article in the hopes of achieving NPOV and reliable sources. I am still convinced this is "vaporware" - a future product that was announced 7-8 years ago, but despite years of "development", federal grants, and a crowd-funding campaign, this company has never moved past the prototype stage. Obviously, I can't say with any certainty that this is really just a way for the Brusaws to collect money (I am assuming good faith), but considering that this is their only product and they haven't started manufacturing it yet (haven't even finished the prototype stage), I didn't see how the company was notable, despite multiple articles in RS promoting their crowd-funding page.

All that being said, if WP feels this vaporware company is notable, so be it. But the article should be more than just a free advert for a private company. Unfortunately, certain editors have made it their cause to inextricably link this technology to this company and have continually attempted to edit out anything that might sound skeptical or critical of the company or the feasibility of the technology. GornDD (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When there is objectionable material in an article on a notable subject, the correct procedure is to delete the objectionable material. Since you are researching the subject instead of wasting the article via AFD, how about editing the article to give good coverage of this notable general topic? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) As I stated above, that's what I have been doing, which resulted in an edit war with certain editors advocating for this company. (2) When the objectionable material was deleted, there wasn't much left. (3) I am still not 100% convinced this product is anything but vaporware and a means for the "company" to raise money.GornDD (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As noted above, Solar Roadways Inc is not the only company working on this technology. The technology is called SolaRoad and was developed by the Dutch firm TNO. (http://inhabitat.com/the-netherlands-to-pave-roads-with-solaroad-solar-panels/) Additionally, students at the Solar Institute at George Washington University installed a solar panel walking path desinged by Onyx Solar, something they call solar pavement. (http://inhabitat.com/students-install-the-worlds-first-solar-pavement-panels-in-virginia/).

I think there is certainly enough to warrant a disambiguation between solar roads, solar pavement, SolaRoad, and Solar Roadways Inc GornDD (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. -- GreenC 16:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. Maybe in 5-10 years. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, are you advocating that solar road or solar roads should redirect to Solar Roadways the company, despite the existence of "SolaRoad" and the non-photovoltaic variant of "solar roads" in Holland...? Or are you suggesting a stub on solar roads that includes both the Solar Roadways and Dutch variants? GornDD (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, we should have a general article about the topic Solar pavement, which some others prefer to name Solar paving and despite WP:NOUN, I said I could live with the "solar paving" name. Eds who think Solar Roadways, Inc deserve an article about the company (divorced from the general topic) should have a chance to work on that. I'm not sure it will pass notability or not but am willing to reserve judgment to see what they come up with, once they're focused on an article about the company instead of mishmashing the company article and the general topic article all up as one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that clarification. I Concur with your reasoning. GornDD (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, another Dutch company called Ooms Avenhorn Holding AV installed a variant of a "solar road" that doesn't use photovoltaic cells. Ooms installed the system in Avenhorn, a village in northern Holland. (http://www.ecmag.com/section/miscellaneous/dutch-company-drives-new-solar-power). The term solar road is not exclusive to the single company that certain editors seem to be advocating for. Disambiguate GornDD (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As this looks like it will survive AFD I have gone ahead and created a new article Smart Highway including a section on the general Solar roads concept as well as other related topics and I have posted a proposal for rewriting the Solar Roadways article to concentrate on the company on the Talk:Solar Roadways page for editors to comment on. filceolaire (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) the article for the company, assuming we have one, should be Solar Roadways (company) (which is now a redir to the article under AFD discussion). Under Smart highway since as you say there are various attributes of such things, it is most appro to have a summary paragraph about solar pavement and use Template:Main article to point to Solar paving, where that aspect of smart highways should be developed in full. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to revise my prior comments because I only just learned about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies). Wherever I said we should give people a chance to develope Solar Roadyways Inc please change that to Solar Roadways (company) (which is now a redir to "solar roadways").NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(companies) states to add (company), corporation, Inc,, etc, only when a WP:disambiguation is needed, otherwise the common name is preferred. It gives clear examples there. Apple (disambiguation), Oracle (disambiguation), Border_(disambiguation), etc. That isn't a case here. If you create an article for solar roads, just have a hatnote up top, as I mentioned on the talk page already for the renaming discussion. There is no disambiguation page for solar roadways or anything similar, since you need three or more items to have that. Dream Focus 02:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Disambig (or other wikilawyer technical term) via distinct, clear article titles is needed. On the one hand "Solar Roadways" the proper noun is a company name. On the other hand, sources are using the same term as a common noun, e.g., This website states that "A solar roadway is a proposed road made from a series of glass panels intended to replace asphalt streets while reducing energy costs and assisting drivers." Let's not get into a stupid debate about the significance of the "s" on the end of the company name. Disambig between the proper and common nouns is necessary.

(2) Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(companies) does allow disambig via addition of "Inc" (or whatever) but the guideline also states that the humble "(company)" is the preferred diambig technique. Absent a reason to do the less-preferred thing, we should follow established preferred naming convention by adding "(company)". I have an open mind to reasons why we should do something different. Is there such a reason? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you link to is about the company's products. Its starts off saying "A solar roadway is a proposed road" and then later mentions the company doing this as Solar Roadways. So no confusion there. Unless you have people likely to search for solar roadways for something other than what this company has made, then its not really an issue. And I don't know why you believe the preferred naming convention has (company) added to it, since the guidelines are quite clear here, company names never have company, inc, etc added to them unless the specific condition for it has been met. It even says "Whenever possible, common usage is preferred" and gives you clear examples. Dream Focus 20:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re part A) My mistake! I must have misread the guideline earlier. Inc or (company), makes no difference to me. Thanks for getting me to take another look at that guideline.

Re part B) We're all nuts if we think a hot potentially global technology like solar pavement/roadway/sidewalk/patio/etc will remain forever under the roof of just a single US company for very long, and in my view, NPOV means splitting the article about the concept from the article about this company, even if they are a leader of the pack. If we imply the product and company are synonymous, in an admittedly small way, wikipedia would be helping erect barriers to competition. We're supposed to try no to take sides, even accidentally. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT ABOUT ARTICLE NAME While this article has been discussed for deletion, it has gone through several iterations and versions. Its name has been changed several times "Solar Roadways", "Solar Roadways (Company)", etc... "Solar roads" now directs here. Can we please start by coming to a consensus as to whether this article should be about the company Solar Roadways Inc (assuming anyone can determine if they are, in fact, incorporated), the concept of solar roads, or whatever, and decide on an appropriate title?

Does Solar Roadways Inc deserve its own article?
Does solar roads deserve its own article?
Should solar roads be included as it's own section on smart roads?

GornDD (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If this article is about the company, then keep it for that reason alone. We have lots of articles about companies all over this encyclopedia. But, since this article is also about a novel concept, we should also keep it for that reason. Just because it seems like marketing for a new product/service, doesn't mean it's an automatic delete. Seems simple enough to me. Hires an editor (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is useful as a short article about a small company. It links to another short article on the smart highway concept, which is a helpful distinction. Either article can grow if needed. The smart highway article in turn mentions several other creators of paths made of solar cells, using products of a Spanish company, so the industry is likely to have a future. Kim9988 (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the above is all now rather theoretical since the other projects (including the 1.5 million Euros for the 2014 Dutch solar bicycle path), are now forked off into smart highway (working title) and yet there is still more than enough sourced WP:GNG for the Idaho company. If there is anyone who still thinks the Idaho company doesn't pass WP:GNG please ping below. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Really interesting. I hope they get at least 50% market share. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whether or not they're a viable company with a viable product is irrelevant at this point. They've created so much hype and raised so much money that that's notable enough by itself. At the very least they should be a subsection of a general article on solar roads. --Prosperosity (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2014 (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.