- 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. Sandstein 12:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Solarwall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced article. I failed to find any reliable independent source - I don't think https://twitter.com/hashtag/solarwall is acceptable. Maproom (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I must question how hard you actually looked, based off a quick Google search... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - I've only just recently come back to editing after a bit of a break, but it seems with just a little ref work that there are a number of third party reliable sources for such an award winning product... feel free to tell me if I'm wrong... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - References have been improved. The R&D 100 award, presented by R&D Magazine, identifies the 100 most significant newly introduced research and development advances in multiple disciplines-- hence this was considered a notable technical breakthrough. Oliveleaf4 (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 13:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - At minimum this article is heavily biased and promotional, so that needs to be fixed first. Skirts89 (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2018 (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.