Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Shade Greener


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 09:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

A Shade Greener

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Written by the firm's PR, all sources are namechecks, directories or based on press releases. Guy (Help!) 07:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 07:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 07:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete-Per nom., this seems to be a ghastly AFC-accept, in light of WP:NCORP and community-standards. ~ Winged Blades Godric 08:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - I disagree with both of the previous comments. Yes, the original AfC submission was written by a COI editor, but that's part of what AfC is for, to scrub the promotion and puffery before the article hits mainspace - which I did, making substantial changes. Only a few factual statements of the original editor are left.  I don't know what at "namecheck" is, but there are no directory listings that I can see, and no press releases.  Yes there are some articles that are likely written after a press release was received, but I used only content which appeared to be written by a journalist to support facts in the article, not any quotes or "according to" info.  A lot of the sources have negative information about the company and can't be COI.  The sources which have only as small mention of the company were included to support a specific fact; this shouldn't detract from others, like the BBC television clip and the Telegraph article, which are totally about the company.  I added a few more sources that I found.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sure you acted in good faith, but the problem remains: the sources lack intellectual independence. It is trivially easy to send out press releases. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I expect the sources do all lack intellectual independence but I also expect all the sources in Donald Trump are likewise doubtful. Even if one is independent we won't know which one for 50 years (or so, or ever). I think you really mean you don't like having an article about this subject. Neither do I to be honest. Thincat (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The article on Trump is not drawn from press releases issued by the subject. This article is. Are you familiar with the term churnalism? Guy (Help!) 21:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What a strange question. Yes, of course.. Thincat (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , Guy, the sources are not press all press releases. Please point out which articles you feel have not been written by real journalists or authors.  I found and added a citation to an academic paper which discusses the company's business model and how it influenced the solar industry in the UK.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. Promotional 'cruft for a nn private company. Wikipedia is not a free means of promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.