Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romania Green Building Council

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 for foundational copyright concerns. If permission is verified, it may be appropriate to launch a new AfD so that the contents can be considered on their merit. However, copyright problems were foundational, and the information actually about the organization was entirely suspect. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romania Green Building Council[edit]

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

Nothing indicates the subject of this article (authored, I might add, by single-purpose account RoGBC); there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to that effect. Let's look at the footnotes for a moment:

Notes 1 and 12 are from the RoGBC website, and not independent.
Notes 2 and 3 have nothing to do with RoGBC.
Notes 4 through 11 are legislation and ordinances. While they may be used to document facts, they cannot make up for the lack of secondary sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: - The article lead paragraph, and probably other parts, have been copied from their website with has a CC no commercial use, no derivates license incompatible with Wikpedia's. I have tagged this as a copyright issue. -- Whpq (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2011 (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.