Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flett Exchange

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. (non-admin closure) czar · · 21:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flett Exchange[edit]

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

A needlessly promotional piece about a SREC auction company. Blocked user Srecmarketplace (talk · contribs) attempted to use this article as a justification for his own puff piece, which is how I stumbled across this. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surprising to find a piece from an editor here since 2006 looking rather promo. Peridon (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Flett exchange is not just another SREC auction company. As far as justification to delete or not. It is a keep. Flett is used by the US government as one of a couple of companies as the references for the SREC analysis (example here). National Renewable Energy Laboratory conducted detailed analysis of SREC and Flett is one of the only two companies with detailed analysis (the other is SRECTrade, a company in CA). See here. The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission, in its President's Budget 2012 had Flett as one of the 23 "Exempt Commercial Markets" with Flett being active between 2007 and 2009. In research, Flett settlement price is used as the benchmark such as by Center for Energy, Economic, and Environmental Policy, Rutgers, PennState, Pace Environmental Law Review, Department of Operations Research and Financial Engineering, Princeton, Solar Alliance, etc. Also some examples of discussion related to Flett Exchange in the press Philly Inquirer, Star-Ledgers, NJ Spotlight, NJBIZ, NYTimes

All of the above clearly demonstrate notability by coverage from multiple reliable and independent secondary sources.

If the article "sounds" promotional, help edit it. Tone it down or something. There is no justification to delete an article just because it sounds promotional. The thing to do is to improve it to make it a good article. Z22 (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After reviewing blocked user's comment, it has that the Flett Exchange also provides service to conduct auctions to sell SRECs. Unlike its competitor, SRECTrade, which conducts an auction once a month on a specific date part is promotional. The only reason was to differentiate their business models. When I reread it again, I also agree that it makes it like a promotional. So we should remove that part or change the wording. Also the user clearly missed the counter-promotional part: However, the value had still been limited due to low transaction levels. Other editors with fresh eyes are encouraged to edit and improve the article. Z22 (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not Wikipedia's finest, but a credible claim of notability, backed by coverage in reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just edited to improve article in regard to WP:BALANCE and addressed the concerns on the appearance of being WP:PROMOTION. Another editor to look at it again won't hurt. Z22 (talk) 03:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That looks way better. I've made one minor change - 'sales' replacing 'sellers' following 'facilitates'. You can't facilitate a seller... Probably something got changed and left the wrong object. Peridon (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2013 (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.