Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GreenEvo (2nd nomination)


 * 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. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America1000 02:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

GreenEvo
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it last with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by the creator with the following edit summary: "reliable information and secondary sources added". I am afraid I still don't see the references ans sufficient. This was at AfD last year and was closed as no consensus since nobody but me and the creator participated. As far as I am concerned, this fails notability today as much as it did last year Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - There seems to be reliable sources and as a government initiative I feel that it passes notability guidelines. - Pmedema (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ( Could you say which sources are reliable? Because I don't see any, and I discussed them in more detail in RS. And could you quote the part or parts of WP:N which say that government initiative are notable? Because I am sad to say that I think you do not understand that policy (because I am 100% sure there is nothing it that says "government initiatives are notable"), and your argument is unfortunately WP:ITSNOTABLE. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So you should educate me on the European Commission that is not a reliable source. If that is the case then I should be looking for the AFD for that article.  I guess it is also your opinion that the Polish science and news/online magazines, , ,  and  are all not reliable sources?  If that is the case then I should follow your experience and capitulate.  I am very sorry that there is no mention of Government Initiatives specifically in WP:N.  I guess we should get cracking and look for any articles that have notability mentions that are not specifically documented!   is an awards agency... ok you got me... not sure if it's a notable award.  - Pmedema (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2016 (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.