Talk:Alta Devices

Contested deletion

This page is not 'unambiguously promotional' because

• it is written in dispassionate style and a style which MENTIONS that the company CLAIMS to have achieved a current world record.
• Stylistic adjustments could be requested, but a speedy deletion request is out of order here (and pushes the 'challenge' envelope unreasonably).
• I have no connection with the company, but I do try to follow the industry because of the global significance of the engineering achievements sought by the industry in its effort to solve widely-recognized world problems. Without such a page, others would 'Google' elsewhere but would not have a 'measured' and balanced Wikipedia article to synopsize info about the company as a starting point for reading, and a visiting point when reading an article about Alta Devices.
• There's plenty of R&D competition in this space. First Solar claimed a conversion efficiency record in 2016 that was much lower (22.1%). Other articles about conversion efficiency were not up-to-date. But if Alta Devices is the current record holder, it should be listed as the current record holder in this achievement. That requires a Wikipedia article about the company.
• I'd be more interested in enhancing this article with (a) more recent solar cell conversion efficiency record holders (and their methods of achieving that efficiency) and (b) whether or not the Alta Devices record of a few months ago has been (already) superseded by their own work or the work of another company. If the claim is true (as I believe it is), then it deserves recognition here in the Wikipedia project. In other words, because the company requires mention in the history of the search for continually improving efficiency, as leader ast this current milestone, there are far better ways to use the energy than by contesting the article: adjusting the style (I don't think that is needed), building the article (I don't think it needs to be further enhanced; there are plenty of industry articles about Alta Devices, and I noted only a few to make the points); etc..
• The links themselves take the reader to articles about what the industry is doing, where one can read further about the industry. It's unlikely that any of these articles will lead to sales because more 'due diligence' would be required before making purchases of such items (I'm not in that market at this time, although I know people who are working in that industry in device procurement).
• In my opinion, a better strategy to achieve broader coverage of an industry that could be said to only show 'winners' is to have a broader industry-focused article on the developers and manufacturers and research scientists who are advancing the renewables industries.
• Achieving 'balanced' (cross-industry) coverage MIGHT be advanced by a few carefully-conceived and deftly-worded sentences about the nature and meaning and significance of efficiency achievements (thresholds are important in renewables industries that compete with other modes of power generation, but how does that work in modern history?) and

However, I think that the writing of such copy would be the work of one or more additional, future editors who could profoundly understand those realities and succinctly state those insights for the purpose of this type of article, since they are required to enhance or fill out the understanding of the readers who might be reaching for relevant historical insights about the role of others AND of Alta Devices, who, after all, did not merely achieve two conversion efficiency records in their R&D, but which also adapts their expertise competitively across a wide range of applications that now are using devices and mechanisms that translate such knowledge production into evidence-based efficiencies on commercial and industrial platforms - not merely at consumer scale.

How that all 'fits' with competition (how broad and expansive is competition in each of those areas?) is undeveloped.

I would hope to see this broadened coverage advance, not regress. MaynardClark (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Strategic position

I would like to see some mention in our articles of how each of these companies (a) achieves greater and greater efficiences and (b) responds to changing geopolitical and intranational regulatory climates. MaynardClark (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)