Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Financial incentives for photovoltaics

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Financial incentives for photovoltaics

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Wastes the readers time and very wrong as it is so out of date. We are late 2022 now - as far as I know solar no longer needs financial incentives as gas power is so expensive Chidgk1 (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except in places like India where grid power is itself subsidized for households, and rooftop panels are incentivized to compete with grid power subsidies Chidgk1 (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (1) If something is no longer used, but was notable, it is still notable per WP:NTEMP. (2) A 2022 article clearly states that Financial incentives, such as rebate programs, are widely used to promote the adoption of residential solar photovoltaic systems.[1] (3) In California, in particular, the subsidies are still enormous: the utilities are obligated to buy back the rooftop electricity at full retail rate (essentially forcing customers without solar to pay for the grid upkeep, overhead, profits, etc.), see [2], for example. --Викидим (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK I accept your point (although I am denied access to www.sdge.com) as I don't know much about the US. I was considering the subject from a non-American perspective. If someone says they will bring the US section up to date I will withdraw this delete request. Maybe the US incentivizes US made panels to bring the cost down to that of imported Vietnamese panels? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject is notable and there's coverage in reliable sources, meeting WP:GNG. The issues presented are all surmountable problems fixed via editing, not deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surmountable but will anyone surmount them? If not the article is useless and wastes readers time Chidgk1 (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the text of WP:PROBLEM rebuts that point better than I can. The best, quickest, and most direct way to handle those issues if they are a concern to you is to make improvements to the article yourself, but deleting the article is not an answer to the problems presented. - Aoidh (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being out of date is a recurring state for uncounted articles. We certainly don't respond to that by deleting them. Sooner or later they get updated; if it's later, there's the appropriate template message to warn the reader that the material is not current. Also, notability is not transitory, and an overview of past RE incentives is in itself a notable topic. Needs work not removal. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:59, 19 September 2022 (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.