Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Griddy


 * 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 speedy keep per WP:SNOW as there has been enough discussion to establish that nobody agrees with the nomination. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 19:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Griddy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG woefully  Jen yir e2  20:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Jen yir e2  20:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment:, why does it "fail WP:GNG woefully"? And did you look for sources before nominating the article, as required? The company is all over the news recently. Examples: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6. As the article's creator, , said in the edit summary , "Added power supply company - people will be looking it up here." That seems likely, just as the subject of the article seems notable. Incidentally, you should have left a talk-page message for DavidFarmbrough. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, per the comments of User:Usernameunique above, and a WP:TROUT to the nominator for a woefully misguided nomination. Not only is the company very much in the news now, but even a cursory GoogleNews search shows plenty of earlier coverage, much of it in depth (e.g., , , , , , , ). Certainly passes WP:GNG by a long Texas mile. Nsk92 (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. obvious keep per comments above. Twopower332.1938 (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - coverage clearly predates the current situation (I just added a 2019 source), and it doesn't sound like the current moment will give it less attention. So it meets WP:GNG; WP:NCORP is a bit more of a struggle, but looks likely to clear that as well. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

CmdrDan (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks like consensus to me, but just in case: This article/company is not only notable--meets WP:GNG--but also a part of a significant event and will make any question of failing WP:NCORP moot. Any motion to delete is misguided. Improving this article and illuminating its significance/role in the Feb 2021 Texas storm and ensuing crisis serves Wikipedia's Mission as a service to inform, empower and engage. Wikipedia can be, should be, must be, helpful and accretive to the current emergency and to the longer term analysis, discussion, and policies to protect citizens, property, and general welfare.
 * Keep — notable energy supplier that, regrettably, didn't have an article until it made the news for its actions during the February 2021 storms in its home market. This article should be kept and expanded. White 720 (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep — notable energy company with now in-depth coverage and seemingly, more coverage coming.Mazurkevin (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Leave it up. This company has been a over US news lately. The person who flagged it needs to not be so narrow minded — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsdtk (talk • contribs) 05:22, 22 February 2021 (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.