Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BPI Energy (2nd nomination)

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BPI Energy[edit]

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

The first AfD was keep (but standards have changed since then) and sure it has sources and I could've let this pass by but my searches found nothing good to suggest better improvement (mostly for Building Performance Institute (BPI). I'm not sure how much activity they've had with their bankruptcy but, again, I found nothing to suggest much good and they seem to no longer be listed at the stock exchanges. Finally, emphasizing their low profile, this article has literally not been edited since August 2011 much less significantly. Pinging the only still active user Eastmain. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Once notable, always notable. The litigation with Drummond Company was commented on by two different lawyers at Lexology. Google News isn't very helpful, though. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG I'd appreciate your input here. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insignificant company--refs are essentially mere notices, or essentially primary sources on a legal case. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Esquivalience ^t 01:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG - non-notable energy co. The only real sources are lawsuits: the Chapter 11 and the lawsuit against Drummond, which failed. I don't see how that makes it pass WP:CORPDEPTH by any stretch. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2015 (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.