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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Cookers International (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)

Intent of creation of this article is unambiguous self-promoting PR puff spam with contents predominantly supported by referencing to wikia.com to create an illusion of notability. The user page of the continuous contributor makes it painfully obvious that this is a spam page, which describes the user's role as "web manager of SCI" Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Appears to meet WP:GNG. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. Many sources are paywalled, so it's difficult to ascertain the depth-of-coverage in those, but the overall topic appears to meet Wikipedia's threshold of notability: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Objection to this article is that it does not appear to be created to advance the encyclopedia, but as a self-serving public relations product to increase publicity by "web manager of Solar Cookers International". Snippets of fairly trivial coverage do not appear to make this company generally notable. Other content fork articles, such as now removed Solar for All was filled completely and referencing back to self-generated contents to exhibit it in the way the subject wants it exhibited. This article is almost entirely composed of promotionalism and I see it as beyond salve. I find that its best deleted and started from scratch so it starts from a objective, neutral ground rather than modified to try to add sources around promotional contents and maintain the overall bias Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Many sources being paywalled does not mean that they are automatically "snippets" of information. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Probably satisfies WP:GNG but needs to be rewritten to remove promotional tone and corporate spam. Maybe it would be better to start from scratch but I believe that it is also possible to improve the existing article. Beagel (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Possibly so. Currently the contents are selectively chosen and use company's materials that only cast them in a positive light. If editors were to go around and start adding references to existing contents, it would solve the verifiablility aspect, but systemic undue bias would remain. I think this is why it would be more conducive to start from scratch as I feel that it would encourage well rounded article if someone chose to recreate it and discourage spammers from creating PR spam that spurts off and leaving all the grunt work of sourcing around their PR huff puff.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Seems to meet WP:GNG. Promotional tone means that the article needs copy editing. Johnfos (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Not just the tone The contents are fundamentally promotional with very little usable materials that aren't sourced form company's self-authored and wikia.com materials. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per sources. I have access to paywall sources, and can send them to nom if you would like to begin working on rewriting. BTW there is nothing wrong with citing material from a company source when reporting on non-controversial basic factual information, see Policy first sentence WP:PRIMARY. Also there may be nothing negative to report about the organization, that doesn't make it out of balance just because they are free of scandal and controversy. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2013 (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.