Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar power forecasting

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator without any dissenting !votes. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solar power forecasting (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)

The article is an essay containing original research with no sources. The title 'Solar power forecasting' does not deserve a separate article. Any information may be updated in Solar Power article itself. -- Anbu121 (talk me) 09:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 21:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 21:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The author has expanded the article, but still looks like original research --Anbu121 (talk me) 11:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The article has been expanded, indeed, and the sources have been mentioned. The content is original. There is an entrance for wind power forecasting, so it would be good to write a new one for solar power forecasting, as they are the most popular renewables sources and both depend on the weather conditions. [User:Yuli_Alma]
• The content is original means that it hasn´t been copied and the sources are mentioned as "References" to follow the structure of the previous Wind Power Forecasting. Any editor is welcome to complete or correct the entrance to make improvements and offer a better quality article [User:Yuli_Alma]
• I withdraw the nomination per the sources added --Anbu121 (talk me) 13:34, 28 July 2012 (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.