Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy efficient clay brick project


 * 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.  Sandstein  16:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Energy efficient clay brick project

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The article lacks independent sources, and a WP:before does not turn up any other sources indicating notability. Also some problems with neutrality. Femke (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and South Africa. Femke (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 18.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 16:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete unless someone can find sources that are more distant from the project being documented – as per the verifiability and reliable sources rules, we should be basing articles on information from those (and it'd help to make it more of an encyclopedia entry and less of a press release). The cleanup tags currently on the article are accurate, listing a range of issues, and I fear that some of them may be fundamentally unfixable. --ais523 22:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and continue working on the issues per the cleanup tags - having tidied the original refs and found another it now stands at 3 independent (I am sure more could be found) vs 1 from SwissContact; toning down the advert-like phrasing should also be a priority. Yadsalohcin (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * None of these 3 have significant coverage, so they do not help to establish notability. They do not even mention the topic of this article. Femke (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * They do, on the other hand, expand on the context of the topic, which might help someone to find more specifically relevant referencing material. Yadsalohcin (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The sources are either not independent or do not address the subject "directly and in detail" as described in our notability policy.4meter4 (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What, not even ref 6? I don't know whether there are others, perhaps someone else could have a look... Yadsalohcin (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Reference 6 is from the clay brick.org website (which represents manufacturers of this product), and as such lacks independence from the subject and can not be considered RS per our guidelines at WP:Verifiability and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2022 (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.