Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Urban Energy Policy Institute

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Urban Energy Policy Institute[edit]

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

This article is sourced only to its own website, and has existed in that state for years. The website is not currently online. A New York Times archive search (I am a subscriber) finds nothing about this organization at all, not so much as a mention. A google search finds its LinkedIn and facebook pages, and this article. And those pages give little information beyond links to the inactive web site.

Moreover the "topics" section appears to be a set of min-articles about energy policy, but not about this organization, its activities, if any, its policies, its leadership, or its public statements on these topics.

There is no indication that this organization is notable. Indeed beyond a LinkedIn page and a facebook page, there is no evidence that it even exists. Delete as not-notable, unless better sources are found and cited. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

commetn It appears that at least some of the article was copied from an earlier version of the organization's site, see Archives https://web.archive.org/web/20111020150935/http://uepinst.org:80/non-profit-status/ Or perhaps the copy went the other way. As the source is available only on an archive, and I can't rule out backwards copying, I haven't tagged this for speedy deletion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated by DES. The non-responsiveness of the web site is not a reason to delete. The Roman Empire doesn't have a responding web site. However, the lack of any third-party sources is reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORGDEPTH. There just isn't any significant coverage. MarnetteD|Talk 01:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC) MarnetteD|Talk 01:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this group has, or had, a worthy missing, which is fine. However, I see how it might be considered a fork of United States energy policy. I would also consider a merger to that article or United States energy law. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition to the reasoning above (eg. GNG; WP:CORPDEPTH), this article appears to be written like an advertisement. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 22:59, 24 June 2017 (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.