Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar earth charging

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. Sounds like all agree this writing is on the whole original thought, some of which may or may not be in agreement with reliable sources, and some of which may be useful for other legitimate encyclopedia articles. If Mfstelmach or anyone else wants the text later for partial use in whatever article, I would be happy to provide. -- Y not? 23:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solar charging

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

WP:OR, WP:NOT#ESSAY - part of a PhD student's thesis which he has stuck on Wikipedia (see this website). Ironholds (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article's only been up for one day! Give it a chance to be developed before tossing it in the trash as WP:OR. --Lithorien (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - The vote gathering and website shows more than clearly that this is going to be WP:OR and nothing more. --Lithorien (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the web site is a blog asking for support against the deletion nomination. The closing admin should note this and check for discussion packing. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Wikipedia is not here to let folk promote their private hypotheses. Instead its role is to report on notable and verifiable hypotheses. Once the research has been performed and written up in reliable sources then it is able to be included here. The "only been here a day" argument is pleasant, and irrelevant. Giving Original Research a couple of days does not change what it is at all. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: solar Geocharging should share the same fate - same author/same topic. I've suggested and implemented a redirect which was promptly undone. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 14:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article is subject to a (currently) uncontested Prod, and is thus likely to go of its own accord. Feel free to make a different nomination there if you feel it to be appropriate. Closing this discussion in whatever way it closes will not influence the fate of that article. You have, by the way, so far neglected to state your own argument in favour of keeping or deletion in this discussion in a substantive manner. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can include that article in this nomination, which is appropriate as they are clearly different names for the same thing. Hut 8.5 16:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is original research, as the blog states "we don't think this has been done before" and the fact that this only exists now as part of a PhD thesis. The role of Wikipedia is to collate and present established information, not to try and originate or promote new ideas or concepts. If this idea is covered by reliable sources then it can have an article, but not before. Hut 8.5 16:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. CorpITGuy (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. I find no mention of solar charging of heat pumps at Google Scholar. There is one false-positive at Google Books, as well as one false-positive and one pay-per-view "PR Newswire" (which I did not pay to view) at Google News. Both of the false positives discuss electrical charging, which is not the subject of this article. There is no evidence that solar (geo)charging in the sense described here is notable, or even discussed outside of David Nicholson-Cole's blog and this article created by someone called Dnicholsoncole. Cnilep (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An essay. Joe Chill (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A fairly uninformed discussion, and an example of real fast OR bandwaggon jumping. Perfectly notable concept Seasonal thermal store, see also related terms there - loads and loads of Google Scholar hits. This is unlikely a PhD OR spam job, but a good faith happy amateur, who inadvertently made a WP:FORK. Merge any useful info. Could be a meaningful search term. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more notable references can be found (or temporary move to user space to improve). I am an engineer and I am aware of at least one office building that was constructed in San Jose, California, USA that I believe uses the technology discussed in this article. More notable references like this (from independent sources) would improve this article. This office building is famous because it has zero energy footprint and a zero carbon emission footprint. I can't find the reference on the office building right now. It was published in the IEEE Spectrum Magazine in the last year or two. More notable references like this (from independent sources would improve this article. If the author can quickly come up the more notable references this article should be preserved. If the author needs more time time to find notable references the author can move the article to wikipedia user space until the article is ready. I would be happy to help the author move the article to user space, if any assistance is needed. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found the reference! ... Here is the internet link http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/buildings/the-zerozero-hero/0 ... Here is a quote: "Meanwhile, water in underground pipes keeps things cool." I believe adding this and other references will help make the article notable. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above internet link is just a short synopsis the original printed article had more details and drawings. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of sources establishing notability. All references to "solar charging" in academic sources seem to refer to solar chargers for electronic devices, not this system. If the article had any sourced content, it could be merged to Seasonal thermal store, but it doesn't. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This concept is different from Seasonal thermal store. It is not storing energy by season, it removing heat from a building (or adding heat to a building) from an almost unlimited source under the earth. It is quite a significant topic, in my opinion (as an Engineer.) I agree the article needs more sourced content.Mfstelmach (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in some ways this concept is as old as civilization itself, but this article is clearly a violation of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Abductive (reasoning) 10:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this is original thought. Please see my comments above. Mfstelmach (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author's comments on his own blog post now seem to suggest that he has found the seasonal thermal store article and sees the concepts as identical. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See above reference that I found that appears to support the view that this article may be notable. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a section of Thermal energy storage, perhaps named "Earth based technology", but needs refs. Google Scholar shows it to be a legit topic, but the term "Solar Charging" appears nowhere. -MBHiii (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had no difficulty finding a source for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2009 (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.