Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Sustainable Energy Agency

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. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Sustainable Energy Agency[edit]

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

Non-notable proposal and a lack of reliable third party sources to establish a notability. It is even hard to identify the subject of this article as most likely this is a same organization as International Sustainable Energy Organization. However, there is no reliable sources to establish this linkage. Also the International Sustainable Energy Organization seems to be non-notable organization by luck of reliable sources. There is no proof that this organization has actually any activities. The article about the International Sustainable Energy Organization was previously speedy deleted based on A7. Beagel (talk) 10:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found many possible sources at Google books and Google scholar. it looks like a serious energy policy proposal, and would fit in very nice into Energy law, once it becomes reality. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is very unlikely it will become reality after the establishment of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). After IRENA process started, even the draft statue was removed from the web (restored the link today by using web archive page). So it could be served as background information to IRENA or some other international renewable energy article, but I still have some doubts if there is enough information for a separate article. Beagel (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. A merger would also be acceptable. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Another dubious article from sockmaster Mac, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mac/Archive. Johnfos (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Similar to the nomination, reading this article, I have not been convinced that this organization... exists. Maybe it would have been better worded as a proposed organization. But the 2 references that I currently see are not sufficient to keep this. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The google books and scholar refs are sparse, and appear to use the phrase descriptively rather than as a proper name. Further, I searched the Gale/Proquest database (millions of articles from many thousands of offline periodicals, all major newspapers, alternative press outlets, etc) and found only two hits, where the phrase was also used descriptively rather than being particular to any one specific proposal. I'd personally like to see such an organization formed, but until one is, or until proposals for such become more broadly reported, I don't see how we can have an article about the prospect. – OhioStandard (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2010 (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.