Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biomass Research and Development Board

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. At the border of what I normally close as consensus, but in my opinion solidly above the line.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biomass Research and Development Board[edit]

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

I have been unable to find any independent coverage in reliable sources. The board is occasionally mentioned in reports by other agencies (not independent) and in specialty blogs (not reliable). The article fails the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for organizations. No new content has appeared in the article since right after its creation in June 2008. That's not AfD evidence, but it does suggest that there's not something I've missed in my search for sources; there's just not much notable going on at this agency. Lagrange 613 21:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Martin451 22:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Martin451 22:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fancy name but fails WP:ORG. gbooks just confirms it exists. what would get it over the line would be some coverage in mainstream press which is lacking. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2014 (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.