Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SB Alliance


 * 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, after discounting comments that are unsigned or from unregistered or very new users, as is customary. Stifle (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

SB Alliance

 * academic, non-profit, sponsored by the UN...where's the problem? KEEP

The green building article in wikipedia does not mention any of the international initiatives led by the UNITED NATIONS or the international works ISO and CEN. The only fully developed assessment tool is the north American LEED. LEED is a comercial product that refers to american standards. I think that wikipedia should allow some space for other initiatives specially. I would say do not delete. Is the fact of being in the first page of Google synonymous of notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Margauxmeunier (talk • contribs) 06:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have carefully read this article and do not see any reason for deletion. I agree with the comment below concerning the absence of references in Google and the fact that this should not be used as proof of non-notability, specially when dealing with scientific/academic issues, this is stated in wikipedia guidelines, and also with the fact that being supported by the UN makes this non-profit a notable initiative. I also agree with the fact that this article provides more information from a non commercial and international perspective and think this is valuable. The article will improve with time, this is often the case with wiki articles: KEEP

When reviewing the Reasons for deletion on Wikipedia Deletion policy page I do not find notability as a criterion. In any case notability should not be solely based on Google findings, if they are supported by the UNITED NATIONS aren?t they enough notable? do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.221.164.7 (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC) The absence of references in Google should not be used as proof of non-notability, specially when dealing with scientific/academic issues. In the English Wikipedia notability guideline (which is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow) this is clearly stated. Scientific and academic content is obviously less quoted in Google than commercial content, do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.252.55.217 (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the green building article in Wikipedia, while the american comercial product LEED is very well described, UNEP and [iiSBE](http://www.iisbe.org)(both non profit and international) are not even mentionned, probably because they are not enough "notable". iiSBE is a network of more than 300 individuals from universities in more than 30 different countries, and it is a very notable non-profit organization in the scientific community that exist for more than 15 years. UNEP is the voice for the environment in the United Nations system. Both are part of the SB Alliance. Is it fair to remove an article with such credentials on the sole criterion of "notability" ? Other alternatives such as editing should be explored first. Do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.106.64 (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am copying the arguments posted by the other above and copying them below:


 * The green building article in wikipedia does not mention any of the international initiatives led by the UNITED NATIONS or the international works ISO and CEN. The only fully developed assessment tool is the north American LEED. LEED is a comercial product that refers to american standards. I think that wikipedia should allow some space for other initiatives specially. I would say do not delete. Is the fact of being in the first page of Google synonymous of notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Margauxmeunier (talk • contribs) 06:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * When reviewing the Reasons for deletion on Wikipedia Deletion policy page I do not find notability as a criterion. In any case notability should not be solely based on Google findings, if they are supported by the UNITED NATIONS aren?t they enough notable? do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.221.164.7 (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The absence of references in Google should not be used as proof of non-notability, specially when dealing with scientific/academic issues. In the English Wikipedia notability guideline (which is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow) this is clearly stated. Scientific and academic content is obviously less quoted in Google than commercial content, do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.252.55.217 (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at the green building article in Wikipedia, while the american comercial product LEED is very well described, UNEP and [iiSBE](http://www.iisbe.org)(both non profit and international) are not even mentionned, probably because they are not enough "notable". iiSBE is a network of more than 300 individuals from universities in more than 30 different countries, and it is a very notable non-profit organization in the scientific community that exist for more than 15 years. UNEP is the voice for the environment in the United Nations system. Both are part of the SB Alliance. Is it fair to remove an article with such credentials on the sole criterion of "notability" ? Other alternatives such as editing should be explored first. Do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.106.64 (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


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


 * A newly launched organisation. Written up here by user:Alfonsoponce who is presumably Alfonso Ponce mentioned at the bottom of this page as a contact for the organisation. Is it notable? &mdash; RHaworth (Talk
 * SB Alliance is a network that gathers UNEP, UNESCO, the UK BRE, the french CSTB and other well known organizations...that makes it notable from my point of view. It is a non-profit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.168.198.127 (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello I am Alfonso Ponce, I have erased my name from the article, the network is a non profit international association for the promotion of research in the field of sustainability. The network is sponsored by UNEP and UNESCO but also by the WFTAO and the french Government. In terms of coverage, the SB Alliance is composed of several important countries in Europe such as the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Finland. All this represented by public (expect for the UK) research organizations. You will find more information about the SB Alliance in the official website. I hope this will help clarifying the situation and again sorry it is my first wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.168.198.127 (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a bit of a challenging one. While it's apparent that the organization is backed by some big groups in Europe, it doesn't appear that anyone noticed its launch enough to cover it, and it gets very minimal Google and Google News response. I'm not sure that it's notable - yet... if it picks up steam in its development and gets more notice, then perhaps it will be notable enough for an article. Tough call, though, so weak delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * delete A mention of this should go into Green building. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2008 (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.