198:
the contrary - the downsides and current consensus/dissent about the topic should be well presented, so that when one will leaves well informed after reading the wikipedia page on this topic, instead of empty handed (empty-brained?). I my personal opinion think the current pages need some serious balancing from the technical and financial difficulties side, in comparison with other technologies - same goes for the solar pond idea - but that does not mean an article has no place in wikipedia. Sometimes a bad article with lots of warnings is better than no article at all, at least for a start. Go back to the very early history on a lot of articles. Many started with 2 sentences, and were considered bad articles, but after about 3 years they often get nominated to front page.
197:
I think keep the entries, but the current ones may need some serious fixup. Just because a topic is considered pseudoscience by some, or because a method of doing something is not the best(most efficient, most profitable) method of doing something, it does not mean it does not belong to wikipedia. On
359:
nonsense. However, I don't believe non-English language news stories make something notable, and that's the closest it's got to sources. Even if they were
English I'd be inclined to suspect that the writers were simply repeating something they heard from a company representative. (That's based on a
139:. There have been numerous attempts to promote this technology on Knowledge pages, apparently trying to influence public opinion to raise money, be it from public or private sources. Looking carefully over the published material one quickly finds out that the energy conversion efficiency of the
467:
of the subject. I am shocked by the claim that "non-English language news stories" cannot make something notable! Are news reports written by
Spaniards or Latin Americans somehow inferior to reports written by Anglophones? I realise this racist/nationalist sentiment is not what
560:. No reason has been presented to suspect that these sources are not reliable (they are as far as I can tell) except that they are in Spanish. In any case, I have formatted them as references and incorporated them into the article (slightly expanded). --
155:. The only source of information is a blog, AFAIK there are no concrete plans to built one, all there is is a "proposal". So until it is actually built, and in working order this should be considered "promotion", and does not belong in Knowledge
489:
Pray tell me: If this
Spanish language news story were all that notable then why did not a single English language news source bother to report it? I also checked Dutch, German, and French language news sources, and they didn't report it
360:
Google translation - it's hard to tell from a machine translation, but it didn't look like more than regurgitation of company claims). It probably deserves to be deleted, but moderation is good, and a more moderate approach is to
514:
relevant is that at least two independent sources have non-trivially reported on the subject (and "looking like" a "regurgitation of company claims"--a disputable claim--is not the same as being a press release). --
509:
Why didn't news sources in other languages report it? I don't know but that question is irrelevant. I'm sure news sources in
Kinyarwanda or Wolof also didn't report the story ... A language is a language. What
308:
section) listing the tallest buildings, both proposed and actual. The proposal appears to be encyclopedic to me... People are likely to come here looking for it, even (perhaps especially) if it goes the way of
169:
to me. Objections to the cost or conversion efficiency have nothing to do with the notability of the tower in question. If the tower has been seriously proposed, and if it has been written about in
290:
purely on the grounds that it has not yet been built. It almost certainly will be N if they ever do build it. A great many projects get approved that never get actually built. Not just theirs'.
445:
with a put-on
Spanish accent (pretend the single "c" is an "s" and the double "c" is an "x") and ask another English speaker what you've said and I think it will come close... (;-: -->
121:
472:
intended, but there's really no reason why a source in one language is inherently inferior to a source in another. Merging the limited content of this article into
227:. There is no need to expand the present article to describe that technology; that would merely be duplicating what is (or should) be in the other article. The
254:, AFAIK there is no evidence that funding has been secured, and that actual progress towards its construction is being made. In view of the track record of
94:
89:
98:
81:
304:. This stub appears to have been created as part of a commendable project to create articles from all the entries in a website (cited in the
147:
technology, and that the Cost of Energy (cents/kWh) is likely to end up 5x higher than other alternative sources of energy. Now the
231:
is about a specific proposal to built on of these in Spain, but is lacking reliable sources to show that it will actually happen.
174:
17:
578:
on a proposed tower in
Australia. This article should be merged into that section as another example of a proposed tower.
136:
85:
611:
582:
564:
551:
519:
504:
480:
449:
436:
422:
396:
376:
342:
321:
296:
282:
266:
235:
206:
190:
159:
63:
314:
628:
36:
627:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
132:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
278:. Non-existent and non-notable, as evidenced by the lack of any independent coverage from reliable sources.
432:
372:
228:
148:
128:
77:
69:
131:
is yet another attempt of promotion of the Solar Tower®. For an extensive discussion of this issue, see
177:
600:
165:
I appreciate your trying to rein in the wikispammers, but this AfD nomination sounds dangerously like
411:
144:
592:
575:
538:
473:
390:
363:
310:
259:
224:
596:
493:
469:
428:
368:
255:
187:
603:
grant from the
Australian government. Perhaps we should change the header of that section to "
561:
516:
477:
57:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
179:. These sources should probably be added, but I will leave that for someone more fluent.
203:
335:
355:(or considered as such) is not a reason to delete - it can be nonsense, as long as it's
579:
352:
331:
184:
548:
542:
446:
419:
318:
279:
170:
166:
50:
463:. The Spanish-language sources non-trivially cover the subject, establishing the
262:
that have never been built I don't believe this one either until I actual see it.
115:
464:
152:
140:
313:. We have articles on many proposals that are unlikely to ever be built, see
151:
is being promoted, an apparent attempt to promote yet another version of the
608:
501:
393:
339:
292:
263:
232:
156:
338:
or other search engines if they want to find something on the internet.
476:
may be justified, but is an editorial matter for the talk page. --
330:
I don't think that is a valid reason for having a separate entry:
498:... it didn't look like more than regurgitation of company claims
621:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
173:, it deserves an entry. This looks quite real to me; see e.g.
223:
There is already an article devoted to the technology, see
111:
107:
103:
601:
Low
Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund (LETDF)
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
631:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
605:Proposed but never realized Solar Towers
427:We don't? I do! I speak no Spanish. --
7:
24:
250:These articles talk only about a
315:Category:proposed engine designs
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
418:means...! No change of vote.
137:Talk:Energy tower (downdraft)
351:As pointed out above, being
334:; people can always turn to
332:Knowledge is not a directory
143:is far lower than competing
648:
612:18:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
595:will ever be built, since
583:18:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
565:17:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
552:10:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
520:16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
505:06:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
481:04:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
450:02:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
437:15:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
423:03:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
397:15:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
377:14:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
343:15:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
322:02:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
297:00:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
283:20:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
267:16:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
236:00:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
207:00:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
191:16:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
160:13:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
64:12:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
574:. There is a section in
416:Parece de ciencia ficción
624:Please do not modify it.
410:: I don't think we need
133:Talk:Solar updraft tower
32:Please do not modify it.
229:Ciudad Real Torre Solar
149:Ciudad Real Torre Solar
129:Ciudad Real Torre Solar
78:Ciudad Real Torre Solar
70:Ciudad Real Torre Solar
496:said the following: "
362:Keep and merge with
145:solar thermal energy
593:Solar Tower Buronga
591:It is unlikely the
576:Solar updraft tower
539:Solar updraft tower
474:solar updraft tower
391:Solar updraft tower
364:Solar updraft tower
311:Solar Tower Buronga
225:Solar updraft tower
441:Nor do I. But say
387:Merge and redirect
435:
375:
639:
626:
599:did not get the
492:For the record:
431:
414:to tell us what
371:
171:reliable sources
119:
101:
60:
53:
48:for any action.
34:
647:
646:
642:
641:
640:
638:
637:
636:
635:
629:deletion review
622:
443:ciencia ficción
258:about proposed
92:
76:
73:
62:
58:
51:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
645:
643:
634:
633:
617:
616:
615:
614:
586:
585:
569:
568:
567:
545:can be found.
535:merge/redirect
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
491:
484:
483:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
402:
401:
400:
399:
380:
379:
348:
347:
346:
345:
325:
324:
306:external links
299:
285:
272:
271:
270:
269:
245:
244:
243:
242:
241:
240:
239:
238:
214:
213:
212:
211:
210:
209:
126:
125:
72:
67:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
644:
632:
630:
625:
619:
618:
613:
610:
606:
602:
598:
597:EnviroMission
594:
590:
589:
588:
587:
584:
581:
577:
573:
570:
566:
563:
559:
556:
555:
554:
553:
550:
544:
540:
536:
532:
529:
528:
521:
518:
513:
508:
507:
506:
503:
499:
495:
494:Chriswaterguy
488:
487:
486:
485:
482:
479:
475:
471:
470:Chriswaterguy
466:
462:
459:
451:
448:
444:
440:
439:
438:
434:
430:
429:Chriswaterguy
426:
425:
424:
421:
417:
413:
409:
406:
405:
404:
403:
398:
395:
392:
388:
384:
383:
382:
381:
378:
374:
370:
369:Chriswaterguy
366:
365:
358:
354:
353:pseudoscience
350:
349:
344:
341:
337:
333:
329:
328:
327:
326:
323:
320:
316:
312:
307:
303:
300:
298:
295:
294:
289:
286:
284:
281:
277:
274:
273:
268:
265:
261:
257:
256:EnviroMission
253:
249:
248:
247:
246:
237:
234:
230:
226:
222:
221:
220:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
208:
205:
201:
196:
195:
194:
193:
192:
189:
186:
182:
178:
175:
172:
168:
164:
163:
162:
161:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
138:
134:
130:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
61:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
623:
620:
604:
571:
562:Black Falcon
557:
546:
534:
530:
517:Black Falcon
511:
497:
478:Black Falcon
460:
442:
415:
407:
386:
361:
356:
305:
301:
291:
287:
275:
260:Solar Towers
251:
199:
180:
127:
49:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
153:Solar Tower
141:Solar Tower
135:as well as
541:if better
465:notability
412:Babel Fish
204:Sillybilly
580:SkipSmith
385:I accept
252:proposal
185:bikeable
122:View log
59:(o rly?)
558:Comment
549:DeLarge
543:sources
490:either.
447:Andrewa
420:Andrewa
408:Comment
357:notable
319:Andrewa
280:Valrith
95:protect
90:history
52:Majorly
531:Delete
336:Google
288:Delete
276:Delete
188:(talk)
99:delete
572:Merge
533:, or
389:with
167:WP:OR
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
461:Keep
433:talk
373:talk
367:. --
302:Keep
200:Keep
181:Keep
176:and
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
609:JdH
607:".
537:to
502:JdH
394:JdH
340:JdH
293:DGG
264:JdH
233:JdH
183:.
157:JdH
120:– (
547:--
512:is
500:"
317:.
202:.
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
124:)
118:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.