Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super chimney

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. NW (Talk) 20:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super chimney[edit]

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

speculative megaproject based on solar updraft tower that's going to fix global warming as well as generate lots of power ;there are no Gnews, book or scholar hits, and the web hits are either for the project itself or for various blogs discussing it and concluding that it's a crackpot idea. It was previously proposed to merge the two but IMO this idea isn't notable. Mangoe (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons given, or at least merge to solar updraft tower. Bob A (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, non-notable. Johnfos (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not because it's speculative, pseudo-scientific, etc. but because of lack of coverage. Note the "Reuters article" is a press release, not an independent source. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fringe view to promote a website – not notable. I would not merge to Solar updraft tower because the latter is a proper article which would not be improved by anything from the article under discussion. It might be satisfactory to replace Super chimney with a redirect to Solar updraft tower. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant third-party coverage. Don't merge as there's nothing worthwhile there. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Solar updraft tower. Agree with Johnuniq and Boris... a merge is not appropriate as everything worth mentioning is already discussed in the tower article. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 14:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 14:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note There is a real product called "Super Chimney", so I'm inclined to oppose the redirect. Mangoe (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magnoe... could you tell us more about this real product? Is it likely that an article would ever be written about it? Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a brand of chimney liner, as you can see here. It may be discontinued, as I didn't turn up a manufacturer's page, but at any rate I don't see us ever having an article on it. Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, why the opposition to a redirect? I think it likely that people would search for the term "super chimney" in the context of looking for information on Solar updraft towers, so it seems like a logical redirect to me. Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because then, by implication, we would be validating it as a kind of updraft tower, unless we specifically mentioned it as a bad design thereof. If it's non-notable because it's someone's idea that hasn't yet caught on, our best approach is to ignore it entirely. Mangoe (talk) 18:11, 3 December 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.