Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SolarMagic

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SolarMagic

Pulled from db-spam queue. Tone is not overly promotional, but since this is a product that is scheduled for a May release, notability is in doubt (but not completely out of the question). {{db-inc}} doesn't fit, so taking to AfD. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article doesn't look spammy to me. The article already contains one reliable source writing about the technology. [1], [2], [3] amongst many more would indicate that many have taken note of this technology. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. This page has four third-party, independent references, three of which are linked, and the subject matter is clearly now being referenced and discussed in vertical media. A Wikipedia entry that is factually-based and objective, as I believe this is, is entirely appropriate. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naracsuah (talk • contribs) 00:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC) — Naracsuah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems well referenced enough, with independent sources DGG (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —94.196.76.190 (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like this is a article from a new editor. What is needs is a rewrite though. --Numyht (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the exact same article as Power optimizer. Also it's not the only kind of power optimizer, there's also this kind: Power optimization (EDA). Hilary T In Shoes (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is a lot of overlap between the SolarMagic article and the Power optimizer article. General material related to power optimization should be removed from the SolarMagic article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Power optimizer article mentions only one manufacturer, National Semiconductor, who make this one. If that really is the case, and I would imagine that National have the patents sewn up, there does not seem any point in having a separate SolarMagic article. SpinningSpark 18:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article Power optimization (EDA) mentioned above is a design process, not an electronic device and is completely unrelated. SpinningSpark 18:56, 15 March 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.