Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate Group

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate Group

Climate Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

This looks like an advertisement with no substantial sourcing. It has been tagged for over 9 months without any addition of sources. Looks like the article is not covered by point 4 here : Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING and delete per WP:ORG Nsaa (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep It's a terrible article and it does read very much like an advertisement. But there's more than enough mainstream press coverage to establish notability; e.g., The Guardian,[1][2] The Daily Telegraph,[3][4] the Daily Mail,[5] the British Broadcorping Castration,[6] and so on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Problems identified can be fixed through editing and/or reverting to a prior version. Article has unfortunately been repeatedly whitewashed by PR hacks but there are less spammy versions in the page history and I know for a fact that there is a user working on creating a more neutral version of the page as we speak. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• The currently article is uncited and looks very spammy. But looking at the sources provided above:

• China 'leads the world' in renewable energy - reliable source about a report written by the group.
• Blair signs climate pact with Schwarzenegger - article topic only mentioned in passing in one sentence - The Blair-Schwarzenegger deal came at a meeting in Long Beach organised by Steve Howard, CEO of the Climate Group, an international charity working to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and Lord Browne, chairman of British Petroleum.
• Tony Blair: Copenhagen climate summit must not be about 'percentages' - the only thing in this article is part of one sentence, Mr Blair, who is working with the non-profit Climate Group...
• Tony Blair calls for G8 global warming plan - article topic mentioned twice. Summarized as, Blair gave Japanese PM a report by Climate Group.
• Is Blair trying to cash in on climate change?: Ex-PM arrives at summit to urge greenhouse gas deal - two sentences about the group. The speech came at the launch of a report from Mr Blair and the international lobby organisation The Climate Group. The group - which works with more than 50 international companies, including BP, Coca-Cola and Nestle - supports the idea of issuing bonds to green-minded investors.
• UK group to push climate process - reliable source that discusses the group's founding and mission.

• Some of the sources are fairly weak. However, the first and last sources provided by SBHB offer significant coverage of this organization. The sources are reliable, being from the BBC and Guardian, and independent from the subject. Satisfies WP:N, therefore keep. -Atmoz (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

  Agree with all of you. The group has significant coverage as pointed out by Short Brigade Harvester Boris and nicely analyzed by Atmoz. As far as I see the article should be completely rewritten and scaled down using reliable sources mentioned above (and others) per one of our core policies WP:V (WP:RS says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered;"). P.t. the content should be thrown out. I.e. delete the article as it stands now, or maybe moved to an userspace where it can be updated with sources, and then moved back to the mainspace when this work has been completed. Is that a good solution? As it stands it should be deleted or we are acting as an press release agency. Nsaa (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

  I think a better solution would be to stubify the article, but keep it in mainspace so that anyone can update it. -Atmoz (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

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.