Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spark 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. The concerns of notability appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07  ( T ) 01:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Spark Energy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Questionably notable and improvable as the links I found were only this and this for the Houston, Texas company and the also this, this and this for the Selkirk, Scotland company. If at all, it seems there's somewhat more coverage for the Scottish company but all in all, both also seem questionably keepable. Notifying author and also  who lists to be notified of these subject AfDs. SwisterTwister  talk  07:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - I have added some sources to show that the company based in Scotland has grown rapidly and received quite a bit of coverage. I consider that there is enough for it to have WP:CORPDEPTH. The article had just contained a small amount of information on the Scottish company until 12 October when there some material added to the article which related to a separate US company. I have removed this from the article and put it on the talk page- it consists of a couple of press releases and a page on a listing site. The US company began as Spark Energy Ventures in 1999 and was incorporated in 2014. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The references all seem to indicate it is not yet notable. It's odd that according to an over-literal interpretations of the notability guidelines 2 or 3 references saying or implying that something is not notable could make it notable for our purposes. I do not accept such a irrational result. In this case, they show the firm is just a minor competitor in the field and showing its relatively low funding, and received an award for being fast-growing(which almost always implies still very new.    DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 03:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete as per DGG. smileguy91talk - contribs 03:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick t c s 03:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Considering this is the second relist, I'm notifying and  who ask me to notify them of low traffic AfDs where they can comment for a better consensus.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying me, . 's sources from The Scotsman, The Herald, and BBC clearly demonstrate that Spark Energy passes Notability. Do you still support deletion of the article, which Drchriswilliams did extensive work on after your AfD nomination? Cunard (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.  This article provides substantial coverage of the subject.   <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Spark Energy to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * The article looks better and an article for the Scottish Spark Energy may be notable and acceptable but I'll still hear any more comments if they come before this AfD ends. SwisterTwister   talk  06:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. did excellent work sourcing, expanding, and cleaning up the article. Cunard (talk) 06:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Not getting why this is still even here! has done an awesome job on this article. --<i style="color:#B00000; font-family:Casual;">MurderByDeletionism</i><sup style="color:black;">"bang!"  19:02, 7 December 2015 (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.