Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Hood 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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Robin Hood Energy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a remarkable company!! Aru@baska ❯❯❯ Vanguard 11:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Its the first local authority energy company in the UK since 1948, that makes it notable and virtually all the other smaller energy companies have wikipedia pages, Ovo Energy, Good Energy, Ecotricity, LoCO2 Energy, Flow Energy, Spark Energy, Cooperative Energy. If Cooperative Energy gets a page for being remarkable in the sense it is the first energy cooperative then Robin Hood is remarkable for being the first local authority energy company since just after the second world war. User:Silverwargreymon 12:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It is also the first Not For Profit Energy Company in the whole of the UK that makes it remarkable User:Silverwargreymon 13:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment This company got plenty of initial coverage in independent, reliable sources. The Guardian ], BBC News, and The Times ('Robin Hood finds the energy to pick a fight with Big Six', The Times, 8 Sep 2015) all gave it a complete article and there was a lot of lesser coverage: for example the Money section of the Daily Mail/Mail Online , regional press and the Daily Star . It looks as if coverage will continue: for example ,  and
 * Hi Silverwargreymon, you make fair points but you may like to look at this policy page on notability for ideas about how to choose references for a Wikipedia article. Lelijg (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Makes sufficient claims of notability  and has plenty of reliable sources to  pass WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * leaning keep it's not a good article, but they've actually been pretty impactful - both notable and in fact noted - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Leaning keep -- makes a sufficient claim of notability as being a not for profit energy company in the UK. Here's very recent coverage from The National: Edinburgh poised to make history with council's sustainable energy company plan, so I believe that it's likely to increase in notability in the future. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 10 October 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.