Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool Roofing Systems


 * 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. Fails general and company-specific notability guidelines. The arguments for keeping the article broadly relate to 1) the notability of cool roofing itself, not this particular company and 2) the need for public awareness of specific government spending, which is a nice idea but not a valid reason for retaining this particular encyclopedia entry. Euryalus (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Cool Roofing Systems

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I declined an A7/G11 deletion on this article as I thought that the awards listed might be a legitimate claim of importance, but after going through and removing the overly promotional claims and the non-RS, I don't think there's enough left to support this company's notability. There don't seem to be any independent, reliable sources that discuss the subject, and the "awards" are given by a company (itself not even notable enough for a WP article) to people who install its products, which hardly qualifies as an important enough award to meet WP:CORP. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per substantial coverage in US Gov Websites. The company figures in more than 40 US projects in California / West Coast. People have a right to know who taking Govt money. Although i think the award list may be removed, while keeping some other aspects like US Projects. --ThinkDone (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Government lists of contracts are primary sources, and generally not good sources for WP articles. They certainly do nothing to establish notability; they aren't independent coverage, so don't help for WP:GNG, and there is no special provision in any notability guideline saying that companies who do business with the government are automatically notable. And whether or not the people have a right to know, they don't have a right to publish that information on Wikipedia, which is a privately held website. You can't walk into the Los Angeles Times and demand they print a list of companies who do government business, and the same thing holds true for Wikipedia. Per WP:GNG, you'll need to find some independent reliable sources if you want the article kept. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 'Delete I was the person who nominated this for speedy deletion. As the "awards" were from a manufacturing company to a company that sells and installs its products, and were basically for good sales volume, I felt that they were of no significance. Hence I thoguht they didn't bring this over the A7 threshold. That it appears that the inital drafter of the article had significant conflict of interest made the promotional nature of this article more serious, in my view. As Qwyrxian says, gvt lists of government contracts are primary sources, and thus deprecated here for most purposes. Besides, they merely establish that this firm was contracted for certian jobs. Many firms hold government contracts, I don't see that as making the firm notable. These are at best "directory"-type listings, there is no significant, much less extensive, discussion in any independant Reliable source, nor could I find one via Google. If this is to be retained, there would need to be significant coverage in independnt reliable sources. Besides, even after cleanup this reads like a company website, far too promotional in my view. DES (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep Hi I am associated with a US government energy conservation campaign and stumbled upon the deletion page. Here are my views:- I noticed that Wikipedia is very limited in Cool Roofing information. The previous head of Department of Energy in the US, Steven Chu, pushed for an cool roofing to change the world. I believe Wikipedia will be instrumental in making the knowledge available to the public, and consequently, helped the public to make the best decision on roofing. There is a page on Reflective Surfaces: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_surfaces_(geoengineering)

However, the information on the page, while comprehensive, did not cover Steven Chu's cool roofing initiative and what it can do: http://energy.gov/articles/secretary-chu-announces-steps-implement-cool-roofs-doe-and-across-federal-government. And the effect of cool roofing is crucial for the world. http://energy.gov/articles/countries-commit-white-roofs-potentially-offsetting-emissions-over-300-power-plants Based on this article, the world will be in a much better position in Carbon emission if cool roofing can be achieved: "Global cooling - Permanently replacing the world’s roofs and pavements with highly reflective materials will have a cooling effect equivalent to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 44 billion tonnes of CO2, an amount roughly equal to one year of global man-made emissions. Assuming the world’s average car emits 4 tonnes of CO2 per year, these savings are roughly equivalent to taking all of the world’s approximately 1 billion cars off the road for 11 years."

The award from Duro-Last is a reflection of the company's achievement in promoting environmental friendly roofing structure. There are many manufacturers but Duro-last is the biggest PVC membrane manufacturer in the US and thus, worthy of mentioning, not because of its sale, but because of its representation that Cool Roofing Systems is an significant advocate installer, of a key product which helps on carbon emission. The reason that this company is noteworthy is that its status on cool roofing which reduces carbon emission and thus helps on global warming. Consumers would be very interested in knowing who the key players are in various green solutions for roofing. We as individuals should endeavor to promote all initiatives even commercial to conserve energy. And efforts of Cool Roofing are notable. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaliforniaSun2013 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * While environmentally I agree with you, none of this is relevant to whether or not the article should be kept. When Wikipedia measures a company's notability, our primary question is whether or not the company has been discussed in detail in multiple independent reliable sources. If you know of such sources, please let us know about them, then we can add them to the article and possibly keep it, but without them, it doesn't meet our definitions of notability (see WP:CORP for more details). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. An article on the technique and its benefits and cost might well be appropriate. An article on the related government imitative might be appropriate (if there are sufficient independent reliable sources available). But those do not mean that this particular company is notable. By the way it is inappropriate to use Wikipedia to "endeavor to promote" anything, no matter how great its benefits to society. Wikipedia is intended to describe what has already come to note in published sources. Readers can then judge its merits. DES (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, insulation and passive cooling techniques are definitely worthy of coverage, but this particular firm doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP as far as I can tell. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete' I would not have declined the A7. There is certainly need for several articles on the relevant subject. There is no justification for having one on the company. &#39;DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2013 (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.