Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association for Renewable Energy & Clean Technology


 * 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   no consensus. There is a very clear majority for keeping, but the arguments on that side tend to be an assertion that the provided sources show that the subject meats SIGCOV, even though many of these sources either lack independence or give only passing mention to the association. Still, there is some merit to the keep argumet, SFREA's sources 9 and 10, while thin, did give some mention of activities that the assosociation has organized. Notability is a guideline, and I am unwilling to delete based on a guideline unless consensus supports that. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Association for Renewable Energy & Clean Technology

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article about an organization that does not satisfy WP:NORG. My WP:BEFORE only shows one of their members being quoted in an article. I can't find any signifigant coverage on the organization. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Objection. Satisfies WP:NORG, as is featured in secondary sources including BBC, UK Government press releases and resources , multiple sector news features consistently over the course of a decade, and is noted on the UNFCCC website as a COP26 official observer. Members include large organisations which easily satisfy notability such as Drax_Group, NatWest, Suez_Environnement, and Triodos_Bank, and National_Grid_plc. SFREA (talk) 10:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC) — SFREA (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. There is sufficient independent coverage. Rathfelder (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , would you mind showing the coverage because I wasn't able to find any. WP:SOURCESEXIST is a weak argument with out proof. The sources provided above are not sufficient, the BBC one is only a quote from a member and another quote of one of the stats they provide, the other 2 simply prove they exist and they all fail WP:ORGDEPTH. The article only refers to their own webpage. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * What do you expect apart from quotes from members? That is the coverage that associations of this sort generate. Rathfelder (talk) 07:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Then it fails WP:ORGDEPTH we need to see something written about the organization by someone besides themselves and we need to see it in independent reliable sources. A quote from a member is trivial coverage and does nothing to help support notability. If no one outside of the group has taken the time to write about the organization in any reliable sources then they do not meet the inclusion criteria. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I have added this source assessment table with my assessments on the sources provided thus far. What am I missing that makes this organization notable? McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I have included more links which highlight wide coverage here.    Here, I have included references to pages which hopefully satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH - I understand this to be secondary sources devoted primarily to coverage of the topic at hand, as opposed to featuring supplementary quotes.    For transparency, I am employed by this organisation and have a conflict of interest. However, this does not prevent me from a) presenting fact-based arguments according to standard Wikipedia protocol for why this page should avoid deletion, and b) suggesting improvements to the original article, as it is clear the article needs significant improvement and does not sufficiently reflect the coverage, significance, or scope of the organisation. I will suggest improvements to the article shortly, but hope that the page can avoid deletion before then. SFREA (talk) 11:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for you additional references and helping the discussion. I have added them to my assessment. Only 2 of them really do any sort of swaying for me but not enough yet to change my mind. The first one from letsrecycle is what we would generally call routine or trivial coverage of a merger and generally does not count towards establishing notability. However the second article by them does a much better job towards providing some significant coverage even though it is primarily on an organization they acquired. The rest did very little to help with notability, If we can find more like the second letsrecycle article about the REA, preferably by another media agency, this would potentially breach the inclusion criteria. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Would jointly written/commissioned public reports/publications/policy papers help satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH? SFREA (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, why? That's primary material. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Within ORGDEPTH you find headings for "Examples of substantial coverage" and "Independant sources", which should help with understanding what we need to see to establish notability. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding these references to your assessment table. I readily admit I am not familiar with Wikipedia procedures, so forgive me my questions. As the REA is a trade association (a membership organisation), can I clarify that when you specify "member" in the assessment table, you mean "staff", as opposed to an organisational member (for example, Drax, as I mentioned in an earlier addition to this discussion)? If you do mean organisational member, then I would correct the table as all quotes featured are of direct organisational staff, so coverage is directly of the organisation (REA) as opposed to organisational members (e.g Drax). Regarding all sources related to Government (e.g. APPG, LDES Competition, Government speech), the intention was to demonstrate notability through interest in REA activities - the REA is not a public sector organisation, there is no need for Government engagement, and therefore the fact that there is engagement indicates a degree of "merited weight" that the REA carries. Which, in a non-wikipedia jargon sense, I would say qualifies as notability, but appreciate this might not help the case for keeping the REA page in this context. Regarding the link to the WRAP PAS110 page, as mentioned in my references, PAS110 is a scheme run by REAL, which is a subsidiary of the REA, as is the Biofertiliser Specification Scheme. Regarding the Let'sRecyle merger news item, could you please help me understand what differentiates a routine/trivial coverage of a merger from significant coverage of a merger? Assume this has to do with controversy. Finally, I would clarify that the Let'sReycle article concerning REA Organics is not about a legal subsidiary (such as Renewable Energy Assurance Ltd. (REAL)), but a practical internal division of member organisations - the separation of REA Organics to the REA has no external or legal meaning. If you feel any of these notes are appropriate, I would appreciate if you could integrate them into the source assessment table.SFREA (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Further to my text above, here is a list of further secondary sources which might support arguments that the topic at hand satisfies WP:SIGCOV.      . Hopefully some of these WP:SIGCOV and indicate that there is some breadth to international coverage.SFREA (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete--I agree with nominator. "featured in secondary sources" is not much of an argument with sources like this when nothing is actually "featured"--a spokesperson is quoted, that's all. 's "What do you expect apart from quotes from members? That is the coverage that associations of this sort generate" is also not an argument: what we expect, in deletion discussions, are secondary sources that discuss the subject. No coverage, no article. The nominator's analysis of the sources indicates just how weak the sourcing is here; "Sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG" is thus not just a cliche, it's also just not true. This edit by User:Mean as custard indicates the provenance of the article--it may have started as a good-faith attempt, but it was hijacked pretty quickly by an obvious COI editor, and the subsequent pruning proved there was nothing there. No, McMatter did a good job with the analysis--the article should be deleted. And User:SFREA, I appreciate the fact that you disclosed your COI, but your links and your arguments should not win the day here. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Context matters. Very few articles in Category:Trade associations have in depth coverage about their internal workings.  What makes them notable is the fact that their spokespeople get coverage as legitimate representatives.  Rathfelder (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per sources above. Disagree that they are trivial when viewed collectively.4meter4 (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There are many more (I would say hundreds) of sources which include coverage. If there is a critical point at which a sufficient number of references which provide coverage which wouldn't individually qualify as significant would satisfy WP:SIGCOV, then I would be happy to provide these.SFREA (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, the sum total of the sources gets it over the WP:SIGCOV threshold IMHO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Drmies. The stub of an article leaves me puzzled over what the organisation does, and the explanations of why the sources found can't really be used to write anything else are convincing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 18:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep meets our guideline for WP:SIGCOV Lightburst (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete – having perused all of the references cited above, I'm not finding anything that would get the Association over the WP:NORG hurdle. The grand majority do not provide significant coverage, consisting instead of brief passing mentions like "a report by the Association...found" or "according to such-and-so of the Association...". Neither enables us to write actual content about the organization, and thus they doesn't count toward notability. (Contra the comments above, combining trivial mentions only yields more trivial mentions, not sigcov.) The Letsrecycle.com pieces are the only ones that could suffice, but 1) it's arguably the sort of trade publication discouraged by WP:ORGIND, 2) barring significant coverage (not trivial mentions) by sources other than "media of limited interest and circulation", WP:AUD isn't met, and 3) multiple sources are required to establish notability. At the end of the day, our deliberately strict notability guidelines for organizations do not seem to be met. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Drmies and Extraordinary Writ. Taken as a collective and individually, the sources provided fail WP:SIGCOV and do not provide content for page expansion. The majority of the sources provide trivial coverage of the organization without going into detail, even in the articles where REA is not the main topic. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. More sources are added below, all aiming to further demonstrate WP:SIGCOV.         Further to comments by Rathfelder, I struggle to understand what is expected of satisfactory secondary sources with specific reference to trade associations (TA) - by their very nature, all TA labour is around specific lobbying subjects, such as a particular law, the case for economic support for specific technologies, or discussions surround recent issues such as the "shortage" of fuel in the UK, and consequently HGV drivers.


 * In this context, when would a trade association ever be highlighted by national news purely to discuss the association themselves, and not in the context of a topic that is a) newsworthy and b) they are actively working on. If the above is of importance, then many of the articles above highlight that, and a quick google of "Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology" (not a common name I can assure you) comes up with hundreds of hits. Consequently, are Wikipedia guidelines either suggesting that TAs should not be included ever (also further to Rathfelder's comment re Category:Trade associations)? Or that most articles re TAs in their current format are insufficient, and if so, can you please present a reasonable example of a source for a trade association which satisfies WP:SIGCOV? Finally, if a strong reason for not keeping the article is its current poor quality (which I do not dispute) I will provide an updated and rigorously referenced article within the next 24 hours which will of course still be up for editing, but will hopefully deal with some of this issue. However, my understanding is the current quality of an article should not have any impact on whether or not a topic satisfies notability guidelines. SFREA (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: I have to say, !voting keep on this is quite a surprise to me. It is an extremely crappy stub about a political lobbying organization, sourced entirely to their own website, and the AfD is ballooned out with walls of text involving arguments from a paid employee of the organization trying to get it kept. It's a slam dunk "delete", the kind of "delete" that makes your hair stand on end and your heart throb with bloodlust. There is, however, one problem: they're right. At least as far as I can tell. In the Let's Recycle sources, I see what looks like an independent third-party source. I am open to being proven wrong on this, but their coverage of the REA seems fine to me. I mean, let's say that this is an invalid rationale, and the page has to instead be called (and about) solely the Renewable Energy Association (which clears GNG because the LR article is now about the subject)... would the article not be WP:RMed to its new name immediately anyway? The other piece on LR is, well, significant, and it's coverage. I have never been much for WP:ROUTINE or WP:MILL arguments, since they prove too much (if a gigantic monster obliterated New York City, you could truthfully say that the coverage is WP:ROUTINE since the New York Times does profiles on every monster who stomps the city flat). What it looks like is that media outlets decided the organization was worth writing articles about, which implies notability. jp×g 09:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This has been one of the best keep rationales so far. I would however like to make a single rebuttal our criteria generally requires multiple independent sources has published stories on the subject in this case the only one to have written on the subject in any significant coverage way has been LR. I'll be honest the LR articles almost have me changing my mind but I need to see someone else has written about this organisation. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: No sources are listed in the article page; if reliable sources exist, they need to be cited there. Multi7001 (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Multiple sources are using this organisation as a "goto" organisation for information and influential to UK Governemnet. Near 20 year history gives SUSTAIN .  There's been no evidence of exploration of MERGE by those seeking delete; and there's at least one obvious merge target.  Anything other than keep seems insane, especially given current climate/energy issues.  I doubt sources are exhausted yet so insane.  Obviously would be helpful if there was UK Governement scandal somewhere. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also note no-ones eems to have looked at The Ecologist source presented by current incumbent UNESCO Wikipedian Foundation member in residence at {Diff|Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology|prev|603281602}} claiming cosiness with the big 6 if I read it right. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Comment: Note that the company CEO Nina Skorupska now has a Wikipedia page, linked to the REA page, which explicitly references awards (CBE) won in relation to the REA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFREA (talk • contribs) 09:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)