Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Commission (Ghana)

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. RL0919 (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Commission (Ghana)[edit]

[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)

There is no inherent notability for government agencies and, as we established in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solicitor General of Washington, some obscure national and sub-national agencies are not necessarily sufficiently WP:N for WP. This article on a Ghanaian regulatory board has only two sources, one of which is non-RS, the other of which is non-WP:INDEPENDENT. A BEFORE on JSTOR, newspapers.com, and Google Books finds no references. A BEFORE on Google News finds limited, fleeting, and purely incidental references that don't cover the organization itself, merely mentioning "XYZ was approved by the Energy Commissions" and so forth. (Note that there is a different and separate Ghanian body called the Atomic Energy Commission.) Chetsford (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A GF attempt to add additional sources underscores my last comment, that the handful of additional references available on BEFORE are not about the organization itself, they merely mention it. For example, this reference [1], etc. While a laudable effort, this does not represent WP:SIGCOV as intended by our guidelines. While the sources prove the Ghanian Energy Commission exists, mere proof of existence is not proof of notability. Chetsford (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I generally don't vote per nom but you've said it better than I could. Praxidicae (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The agency is a major energy regulator in Ghana, covering electricity, clean energy and sustainable development. The commission is also has key regulatory oversight of the following national agencies so it cannot be considered an obscure parastatal:
Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC)
Ghana National Gas Company (GNGC)
Ghana Grid Company (GRIDCo)
Electricity Company of Ghana (ECG)

You might as well as nominate the Malaysian Energy Commission for deletion as its profile and stature are analogous to Ghanaian Energy Commission.Kandymotownie (talk) 20: 38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

While this may be true, an organization's real-life importance is not synonymous with its WP notability. Often the two intersect, meaning major organizations tend to generate the type of WP:SIGCOV needed to achieve WP:N. However, WP ultimately evaluates organizations based on factors unrelated to its statutory characterization. Chetsford (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the first place,the article was nominated for speedy deletion because of potential copyright infringement as per the initial deletion request explanation. This has been duly corrected.Ataavi (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address the actual crux of the deletion nomination nor does the nom even mention it. Praxidicae (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major regulatory body in Ghana, managing all forms of energy distribution and development in the country. It is comparable to Ontario Power Generation. It would benefit from expansion, and might want to look to the OPG article as a template. Risker (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Risker. A major state agency is per se notable. We should keep this as part of the Energy law series of articles. Bearian (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Risker.Tamsier (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't agree that this is "some obscure national and sub-national" agency. William2001^(talk) 22:15, 2 July 2019 (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.