Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme Low Energy


 * 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. Generally I dislike having to check "who's who" when closing a discussion, but when all the commenters defending what looks on the surface like a company PR effort are low-involvement accounts making mostly non-policy-based arguments, it stretches the boundaries of WP:AGF to take them at face value. RL0919 (talk) 06:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Extreme Low Energy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A great deal of PR, but nothing else. a/c even the PR, what they have is "potential"  DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete - Couldn't agree with you more DGG.Dare I say it, as far as pages go, this one is pretty low energy... MaskedSinger (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete - I was in two minds about this one - I did a bit of work on this yesterday removing some of the more obviously problematic stuff, and had been planning to go back and have a better look at the other sources today - I see DGG beat me to it. Agree that the sourcing overall doesn't arise to WP:CORPDEPTH, so delete as non-notable. Girth Summit  (blether) 11:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting that there could be some COI/gaming the system issues with the author's account. They performed precisely 10 gnomish edits, then nothing for a few days, then produced this article. I'm not looking to cast aspersions, but that behaviour would be consistent with doing the bare minimum to get autoconfirmed, which would avoid having to go through the AfC process. Girth Summit  (blether) 12:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - User:Girth_Summit The first thing is, you removed the whole section, didn't even bother to go through the links. They were all reliable and had in-depth coverage. The only thing lacking, I think, was the references were not placed after the sentences, they were put at the end. Even I can put them in order with the respective sentences for which they had been linked to.
 * Secondly, I doubt you go through the issues mentioned. Notability is clear from the.
 * Thirdly, what is wrong if I had just 10 edits? Is it against the policy of Wikipedia to create a page with only 10 edits?AnneMendik (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , on your first point, I assure you that I did go through the links. The content I removed was either unsourced, or sourced to affiliated refs, or to primary refs. Please feel free to reinstate any content and/or refs that you feel were removed incorrectly, and other editors will assess them as a part of this deletion discussion.
 * On your second point, notability isn't established by giving links to Google searches - you need to find multiple specific sources that satisfy the requirements at WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * On your third point, I am not accusing you of anything. However, 10 edits, and an account that is four days old, is precisely what you need to be able to create an article without having to go through the WP:AfC process. That would be one way of circumventing the review process, if one wanted to avoid having a draft rejected because it was too promotional, or the subject wasn't demonstrably notable. If you have any kind of connection with the subject of the article, you should review WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the necessary disclosure. Girth Summit  (blether)  21:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On your third point, I am not accusing you of anything. However, 10 edits, and an account that is four days old, is precisely what you need to be able to create an article without having to go through the WP:AfC process. That would be one way of circumventing the review process, if one wanted to avoid having a draft rejected because it was too promotional, or the subject wasn't demonstrably notable. If you have any kind of connection with the subject of the article, you should review WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the necessary disclosure. Girth Summit  (blether)  21:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On your third point, I am not accusing you of anything. However, 10 edits, and an account that is four days old, is precisely what you need to be able to create an article without having to go through the WP:AfC process. That would be one way of circumventing the review process, if one wanted to avoid having a draft rejected because it was too promotional, or the subject wasn't demonstrably notable. If you have any kind of connection with the subject of the article, you should review WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the necessary disclosure. Girth Summit  (blether)  21:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Girth_Summit, Regarding the content removal, part of the content which I have restored now was properly referenced and it was covered by third-party reliable media outlets. They were properly sourced and were neither sourced to the affiliated references, nor to primary references.


 * Regarding the notability, Wikipedia says: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
 * Moreover, notability guidelines say: smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products. Of course, you cannot compare a new organization with Samsung or AppleInc., they need to be treated standalone.
 * Further, WP:CORPDEPTH says, "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." Don't you see these in the references?


 * Regarding the account, I had had an account a few years back, I forgot the details and created a new one. As long as I know, there is nothing wrong in creating a page by using an account which is a few days old. The fact is, even if the article is created in the mainspace, it would go through the review process.
 * Finally, if you don't have time, let the other editors and reviewers evaluate the work, it isn't necessary that you strip the content and favor the page for deletion by any means. The way you removed the links and the content without any evaluation was not the right way. Obviously, a new page will not be perfect, it can be improved if properly tagged with the issue. AnneMendik (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If I'm honest, I'm not seeing the sources in the same light that you are. There are some articles in the local press which look like rehashed press releases (including at least one that is actually labelled as a press release), but nothing which obviously passes CORPDEPTH. However, I'm happy to let this discussion play out and see what other editors think.
 * Would you be prepared to affirm that you have on connection of any kind to the subject of the article? Girth Summit  (blether)  16:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - In technological field, I think this firm introduced an innovative idea pertaining energy sector, eventually they have won many national wards as well as fundings acclaiming their business idea. Moreover, the subject is fairly covered in some newspapers showcasing their potential as a technology company. So, I don’t think it would be appropriate to nominate the article for deletion. Instead, the article can be improved by adding proper citations and more references.Mehmood.Husain (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep - references do seem mostly from Press agencies about the company but these look like 3rd party reviewers and not self generated, also some are notable references from Universities, and Energy organisations such as ESA.org, the Energyinst.org and the UK Energy Saving Trust. I also see they have published and granted patents around the world for their technology as can be seen on google patents so have technological IP so I would suggest adding this to the page to affirm its importance - https://patents.google.com/?assignee=Extreme+Low+Energy SRANDELL (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete listed awards are more PROMO than notability establishing. Does not have multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing it in significant detail thus does not meet NCORP and is not notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I would encourage any closer to review the contribution histories of the editors so far !voting keep in this discussion. Girth Summit  (blether) 23:59, 11 July 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.