Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NET (sustainability)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

NET (sustainability)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Also nominated for speedy. No indication of notability. Organization with environmental goals but only internal and press-release style references. None of the references have detailed links or widespread availalbility. Article reads like an advertisement. Shadowjams (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC) 
 * Delete. A Swedish organization that proposes an alternative socioeconomic system, no doubt a modest and achievable goal.  But the references provided appear not to be about this organization itself, but rather are given to bolster its views. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep If it can be cleaned up... See Twin Towers Alliance for example of giving them a chance (time's running out on that one though). Non-profits, charities and social organizations should be strong inclusions, as long as there is no spam involved and they're well-sourced. §FreeRangeFrog 20:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep in today's socioeconomic environment I fail to see how any ñon profit organisation that addresses the problem can be seen an not relevant, especially a scientific organisation! As to the "press-release style references", those are not press releases, they are reports from reporters who reported on the organisation not releases from the organisation. "None of the references have detailed links or widespread availalbility", prob true for the moment but as noted when I first wrote the article I need to work on the references. I have quite a few more but just need the time to work on it. Time is the problem! The article is still note worthy, and as we have more and more economic problems, organisations, especially organisations of scientists and engineers, who address the currnet socioeconomic problems will become even more not worthy. I think its more a case of cleaning it up and working on it more, not deleting it. "time's running out on that one though" I will w8 till this deletion issue is over and then redo it as suggested. Has there ever been a wiki article that was perfect 1st time? Tarci (talk) 08:42, 5 February 2009 (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.