Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Literacy Advocates

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 per lack of sourcing in verifiable, independent publications (all are press releases) 17:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Energy Literacy Advocates[edit]

Non-notable organization. Google news has only press releases and one or two passing mentions. Their own "In the news" page has only a press release and an op ed. Previous prod contested ~~without rationale~~ by article creator. Jfire (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete I found coverage ~~including Forbes, which appears to be about the organization. That's what kept me from nominating this when I found it but~~ I still can't see an article emerging, it's not spam but it's not encyclopedic either. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes article is a businesswire press release (not a RS). Not to mention a dead link. Jfire (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to come back and add that once I tracked down the live version (with 54 extra copies in case anyone wanted one to go :) TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Reuters also.[1] Just over the bar. DGG (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also a press release. Jfire (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, the only coverage that I can find seems to be reprints of press releases. Not sufficiently independent to assert notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - The rationale for contesting the prod (which I put) can be found here.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't notice that it had been deleted and restored. Thanks for the correction. Jfire (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2008 (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.