Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Institute


 * 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 keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Energy Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

20,000 members is a claim of significance so how come in the fourteen years of this article's existence, nobody has supplied independent evidence of notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, can't find any independent sources that mention it, let alone cover it in-depth, it appears to be a non notable institute. Theroadislong (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. This was originally created as a stub in 2006, when our notability criteria where vastly weaker.  Looking over the history, I see a couple of attempts to flesh this out, but they've all been by WP:SPA's and have all ended up being reverted as WP:COI, promotional, copyvio, and the like.  I did some searching of my own and didn't find anything useful, but "Energy Institute" is a somewhat generic term, which complicates searching.  I suspect that a national professional society with 20,000 members is likely to be notable, but the onus is on those editors who want to keep the article to find sources which meet WP:NCORP.  -- RoySmith (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The article is linked from a surprising number of other articles . . but I think that's probably only via templates, such as Template:Energy in the United Kingdom.  It links to Petroleum Institute - which may also need deleting?  But I'm not familiar with practice, principles or policy around deletion, so I'll leave it at that. - SquisherDa (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Is this part of a plan to strip down to a stub and nomininate for deletion all the similarly sourced organization articles in Category:Engineering societies based in the United Kingdom and Category:Professional associations based in the United Kingdom not to mention those based in the US and other countries? If not there is no reason to single this one out for deletion. Such organizations are not covered in the mainstream press. We keep such organizations if they have an impact on their fields, and there are various ways of determining that. This one is on the UK's list of "Approved professional organisations and learned societies". It also publishes a scholarly journal that is held by 720 mostly academic libraries. Engineering and technology are underrepresented here compared to the sciences. There is no reason to compound the problem. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with your feelings about STEM topics (not to mention that I share your punch-card and RUNOFF experience). But, We keep such organizations if they have an impact on their fields isn't how this works.  What we need is independent, reliable, secondary sources.  I agree with you that we want to include organizations that have an impact on their fields.  We measure that impact by the fact that sources have written about them.  No sources, no article.  -- RoySmith (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * although "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." (from WP:NEXIST). Coolabahapple (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No argument about that. If you could list a few good sources here, that would help.  -- RoySmith (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Elsevier! - a connection with the real world! CiteScores, Impact Factors - hey, it's Christmas!!  An editorial board comprising actual people! connected with actual universities!  The points in the earlier posts here, about WP:SPAs etc - and of course the article text - left me with the impression tht the whole article was spam, scam or even fraud (probably trawling for membership subscriptions from students in other countries with an uncertain grasp of English) - and wanted deleting without undue delay.
 * Maybe not!
 * Given the article has been here since 2006, and has made basically no progress, and is open to such severe criticisms, maybe what's wanted is communication? with those single-purpose contributors? with Elsevier? with "Editor Paul T. Williams University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom"? with the members of the Journal's editorial board?? - conveying some idea of our need for sources and of course, above all, neutral viewpoint!! Because yes, there's a real risk of our sourcing rules and reliability criteria screening out notable industry-specific material - systemically distorting our coverage, in conflict with Wikipedia's distinctive potential role in the print- and online-encyclopaedia ecosystem.  But this article, as it has existed throughout its ten+ years, is a horror!
 * The Journal is the kind of thing we'd accept as reliable without hesitation, in STEM articles generally. So for notability of the Institute, all it would take would be a "happy tenth birthday Energy Institute" note or squib in the Journal.
 * , where / how did U find that 720 libraries hold the Journal?
 * -SquisherDa (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , using the Online Computer Library Center's WorldCat here]. Results will vary slightly with your location. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Journal is the kind of thing we'd accept as reliable without hesitation, in STEM articles generally. So for notability of the Institute, all it would take would be a "happy tenth birthday Energy Institute" note or squib in the Journal.
 * , where / how did U find that 720 libraries hold the Journal?
 * -SquisherDa (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , using the Online Computer Library Center's WorldCat here]. Results will vary slightly with your location. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * -SquisherDa (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , using the Online Computer Library Center's WorldCat here]. Results will vary slightly with your location. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Plenty of evidence of the notability of the organisations which eventually joined together in written form in academic libraries.  Notability is not confined to online presence.Rathfelder (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's easy to lose sight of the fact tht both references and evidence of notability don't have to be online. But when they're not it can be a little hard to evaluate them, establish how relevant and how convincing they are.  For cases of this kind, 's approach looks useful!  - SquisherDa (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is correct that sources don't need to be on-line. But, they do need to be WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY, and WP:INDEPENDENT.  They also need to be specific.  It's not enough to say, "There are sources that exist off-line".  You have to say what they are.  If there's a book, give the author and title, so somebody could go find it in a dead-trees library.  And, while Journal of the Energy Institute may be notable (I have no idea if it is or not, but let's assume for the moment that it is), that doesn't make the Energy Institute notable; see WP:NOTINHERITED.  -- RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability means already well-known. We show this by finding reliable sources, but well-known is the key. Academic libraries are willing to pay the hefty library subscription rate for its journal. We can see that online through WorldCat. The Energy Institute is the organization does the assessment of British engineers in energy fields so they can be licensed and accredits the engineering courses they take. We can see that online at the Engineering Council's website. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability means already well-known. We show this by finding reliable sources, but well-known is the key. Academic libraries are willing to pay the hefty library subscription rate for its journal. We can see that online through WorldCat. The Energy Institute is the organization does the assessment of British engineers in energy fields so they can be licensed and accredits the engineering courses they take. We can see that online at the Engineering Council's website. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The two earlier organizations that constituted it were the major national associations in their fields, and the combination continues this status.  The Institute of Petroleum in particular was a world-famous organization in its field with international influence. Since this is the combination article for these also, there should be no problem about sourcing; I'll see what I can do. But it seems absurd for an encyclopedia to have notability rules that make it difficult to cover such organizations--it's should be part of the basic coverage, and   their  inclusion can be justified on the basic of the fundamental policies that  WP is an encyclopedia and NOT INDISCRIMINATE over the  notability guideline.  The guidline is just an expansion of NOT INDISCRIMINATE, and major national organizations meet that fundamental qualification.   DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment Many editors are insisting this organisation is notable but are failing to provide any evidence re independent, reliable, secondary sources. Do we just take everyone's word for it? Theroadislong (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Hooperbloob (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Mccapra (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2019 (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.