Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecologi


 * 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. I will draftify this on request if someone comes forward to work on it SpinningSpark 14:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Ecologi

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Much as I'd like to see an article here, we are shy at least one further good source before notability can be asserted. The only solid coverage I can find is the given BBC article; the second current ref is an in-house press release that can be found reprinted, unmodified, in a dozen aggregators. I think we'd be just about good with one other piece of unaffiliated in-depth coverage, but no dice so far. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I added some references, and I think notability is now shown. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oof. You are not making this easy. None of these is a solid piece of independent reporting about the org; I'm seeing two more press releases, one listing, three passing mentions and two unrelated articles. (In fact I went ahead and removed the "controversies" sentence along with the those latter two - that really is an editorial addition, with no connection to the article subject.) I'd like to leave this open for further comments. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Draftify or Delete. Ultimately I agree with 's source analysis. There isn't enough here to pass WP:SIGCOV or WP:NCORP. However, it's a young company and we are really only one quality source away from meeting GNG. I would consider draftifying per WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify as per WP:ATD if there's someone to take it on or Delete. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 19:48, 20 September 2021 (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.