Deletion of Solar bowl

Comment: on the surface, seems to be a bad nomination.  The subject is apparently notablehttp://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JSEEDO000114000004000272000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yeshttp://solar.calfinder.com/blog/going/the-solar-bowl-solar-vs-electric-water-heaters/http://www.auroville.org/research/ren_energy/solar_bowl.htm and the article, such as exists at the momenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solar_bowl&oldid=306826140 is sourceable and perhaps sourced.  It was nominated for deletion in ''less than one minute'' after creation,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solar_bowl&diff=306822305&oldid=306822205  The article creator admits to a potential , being a newbie, and being unfamiliar with process.  We all remember writing our first article, right?  New editors deserve |a little extra slack.  Hopefully they will review their "welcome to Wikipedia" package and look to emulate the methods, style, and tone of some of the better articles they can find around here. There are "templates" you can use to indicate that you are in the middle of an article and requesting a little time - I won't point you to them because it's useful to learn the ropes by climbing them.  I suggest the nominator withdraw the nomination, watchlist it, correspond with the article creator about any concerns, and consider re-nominating it later if they still believe the subject to be non-notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:BITE)