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. MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vortexis (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)

A model of wind turbine. Reads like an advertisement for the technology, and cites no reliable independent sources; none are immediately apparent in a search.  Sandstein  13:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was unable to find any reliable sources for this technology in Google Scholar, Books, or News. All the putative hits I found for 'vortexis' were mis-spellings of 'vortex is'. The patents cited in the article are not considered reliable sources. The article itself seems promotional for the technology. Without any reliable sources, the technology fails notability and verifiability thresholds and cannot stand. --Mark viking (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ABSOLUTELY DON'T DELETE
  

Since when is an interesting and promising new technology that has high enough novelty value to warrant an actual patent considered to be even potentially unworthy of the encyclopedia ?????
The patent ^[1] itself contains enough fact for anyone with knowledge in physics and engineering to verify it's value!
Furthermore, look at the date of the patent, and consider the time it takes for new engineering ideas to mature into "products" that the ignorant hordes, or even technology journalists, will recognize as interesting enough that it will emerge into e.g Google.
If this article is deleted, I will consider it as an attempt by the encyclopedia to cover up a promising technology.
External references:
(1) An article in Gabon Turbine Electricity, published Jan 19, 2016.

   http://www.turbinelectricity.ga/2016/01/what-is-vortexis-wind-turbines.html

(2) Short video of one of the prototypes, published Oct 26, 2015.

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtQCtWmPGOM

Love Nystrom (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is measured by coverage in independent reliable sources, see WP:N. This does not include sources like patents, blogs and Youtube videos.  Sandstein  09:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree that vertical axis wind turbines are an interesting topic, but I can't find anything about Vortexis in particular. Much of the article text is copy-pasted directly from the patent. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No evidence of notability. Searches did not turn up anywhere near enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Most mentions were not to this subject, but different uses of the term. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Maybe in coming years this will become more notable and will warrant an article here. Patentability is a completely different issue than notability by Wikipedia's standards. Histrionics regarding "cover[ing] up a promising technology" are not helpful; declining to continue publishing an encyclopedia entry regarding a non-notable whatever is what editors do. Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2016 (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.