Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rentech


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Rentech

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have not checked for notability yet, however since the only sources used in the current article are press releases and the company website, if the WP:V violations were removed, there would be nothing left. Deleting the entire article seems appropriate when there is no properly sourced content to salvage. CorporateM (Talk) 03:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nominator admits not doing WP:BEFORE. I added a few of the readily available RS refs. Meets WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I was able to find reliable coverage:, , . Company seems to pass GNG. --JamesMoose (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My deletion rationale was not WP:CORP, but WP:V. If editors take the initiative to add sourced content, I will remove the original research so the sourced content can remain. If everything in the article is Original Research, than it needs to be deleted in its entirety. CorporateM (Talk) 06:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with deleting uncited material. I argued exactly that just a short time ago where the AfDed article would have had a single sentence left if all uncited material was removed, however in this case, enough would be left for an article even after meeting WP:V. In other words WP:V is met in this case as far as keeping the article. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:V does not preclude the use of primary sources, so the rationale for the nomination is invalid. primary sources should be used in cases where the complaining editor doesn't feel like fixing such problems himself. Subsequent investigation revealed that the company meets WP:GNG. In addition to the above, here's for example an FAA book/report discussing some of Rentech's programs . I don't edit in the area of biofuels, but some specialist publications clearly have extensive coverage of Rentech, and they are probably RS. Also, their fertilizer business gets some attention as well . Finally, being listed at NYSE made it very unlikely that the company isn't apriori notable per WP:LISTED. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think someone added some sources now anyway. I will take a look at doing some cleanup. CorporateM (Talk) 17:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Their energy-related business is also covered in some depth in this Encyclopedia of Energy; the book is from 2007 so probably needs to be supplemented with news sources. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Some semi-independent coverage of their (now defunct it seems) energy projects (only "semi-independent" because the goverments were involved in those) also on DOE's site and this site reproducing an article from The Canadian Press. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is sourced now with third-party sources to meet WP:V and WP:RS. It also meets WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Beagel (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2014 (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.