Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Energy

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. postdlf (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Energy[edit]

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

I would have considered this for G11, but it was accepted by AfC . I tried fixing this to be less promotional, but gave up on ity. Sections beginning "With over 400 patents awarded or pending, Intelligent Energy holds a large and growing bank of intellectual property, accumulated over 25 years. " show a clear promotional intent. The repeated use of the full name in every other sentence show the promotional results, as does the emphasis on what its technology would be able to do when and if it ever becomes commercialized. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or stubbify. Although the technology exists, the grossly promotional nature of the article, which reads like a press release or advertorial, is totally unsuitable for Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Blow it up and start again with only those things that can be verified by independent, reliable sources (which wouldn't be much). Some of the language is horrific and many of the biggest claims are completely unsourced. The subject might be notable but this is a clear breach of WP:NOTPROMOTION. Basically just an advertorial. Stalwart111 00:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I was dubious about this at first, but the list of awards makes me think it is notable. Sunday Times Tech Track 100 is (I think) about the 100 most important emerging technology companies in UK. Sunday Times thus thinks it notable. Being a bad article is a reason for improvement, not for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs improvement but meets GNG and ORG. 86.136.93.185 (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nom's only contribution to the article is AfD nomination. This can be fixed. ~KvnG 21:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up or stubbify - This article is not so good as a good article, but... things are not all that bad. --Søren 22:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tito☸Dutta 16:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing. Normal editing processes should be used to fix overly promotional tone. Carrite (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still say keep possibly as Intelligent Energy Limited. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:28, 5 September 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.