Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Matters


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 19:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Energy Matters

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Lack of reliable, independent secondary sources. Google produces a lot of hits for unrelated magazines of the same name. Miracle Pen (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The magazine definitely existed, although reliable sources need to be found for many of the claims in the article. It's not surprising that there are few online references to this 30 year old publication and we can't infer a lack of notability from that. Pburka (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment You need independent secondary sources; I don't think a student publication is going to be covered much by secondary sources (although it seems fairly professional by the standards of student publications, which is why I hesitated to nominate it at first, a month or so ago.). Miracle Pen (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are inevitably very few independent secondary sources on the web for events dating back 30 years which are not covered in online archives, so a lower threshold of verifiability needs to be applied to information of this age. To provide an important secondary source, the article now includes the hi-res image of a letter from Buckingham Palace (surely a reliable source?) which confirms several of the statements made in the article.  Guidance would be welcome from those with experience of this kind of age-related problem as to how best to provide independent online sources from the era of paper. I'd argue strongly against deletion of this article, whose subject both felt and had a significant impact upon a number of influential individuals. Andrew Bud (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no requirement for online sources, cited references to print sources are fine. However, whether they be print or online the same notability criteria applies - that the subject of the article has received coverage in multiple reliable sources. Nuttah (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - makes some bold claims but the page not only fails to meet WP:GNG but many key facts cannot be verified thus failing the policy WP:V. TerriersFan (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete The complete absence on reliable sources means that the article cannot establish its notability. The absence of independent sources also brings the entire articles verifiability into question, especially given the principle authors COI. Nuttah (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. In response to the comments in this discussion, extensive references have now been added to the article.  Following the guidance from Nuttah, these are references to print copies of the original magazine (and another publication) which are in the Cambridge University Library and may be freely viewed for independent verification.  This should now fully satisfy the notability requirements for this article.  Andrew Bud (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm afraid you have not addressed the concerns, as of yet there is still no evidence of the independent coverage required to establish notability and provide verifiability. Nuttah (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. That is not correct. Article references 2 and 11 are both independent coverage.  I would also argue that a letter from HRH Prince Philip from Buckingham Palace must be fairly considered independent evidence of verifiability, and also abundant evidence of notability (see WP:NMAG criterion 2). Andrew Bud (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I struck the second keep vote by AndrewBud. Only one vote per person, please. tedder (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable independent sources have been found or given to establish notability. tedder (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This magazine is at the very least a footnote in the history of energy policy and if it is thought that some points in the article are unverified or wrong, that can be put right without deleting the entry.  James Kessler  —Preceding unsigned comment added by James Kessler QC (talk • contribs) 12:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep.Useful source of information on the early views of notable politicains such as Bernard Jenkin MP and NGO advisors such as Mike Grubb. Mikedash (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2010 (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.