Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings


 * 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. There's enough discussion here to determine that the delete button is not going to be pushed. Almost everybody agrees that the article needs to be cleaned up and some work has been done in that regard. The issue of renaming can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article is a polemic as it stands, and I'm not sure it can be cleaned up sufficiently to meet WP standards. Definitely needs to be retitled if not deleted. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is a factual reference about current U.S. government energy policy. It takes a neutral point of view and does not advocate whether this policy is good or bad. How is this a SOAPBOX polemic? Please reply with specifics.


 * If you would like to suggest a different name for it, please do. But, "Zero-Net-Energy" is the term used in the formal statement of policy, which applies to 100% of all USA Federal Buildings. If you change the name, please change all references to it throughout Wikipedia.


 * Please re-read the cleaned up article and delete this deletion discussion. Escientist (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that the editor above has removed most of the soapboxey material, so be sure you're evaluating the most recent version.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment&mdash;At present it seems like a bit of a quote farm. It is in need of cleanup and re-vamping.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, [needs review] provided that we can work out a readable summary of this EO that is factually accurate. I attempted a copyedit for readability, but I'm not entirely sure I've gotten everything straight in this first pass. This version needs review. Trilliumz (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to copyedit this new article. You retained the facts, maintained a neutral viewpoint, and made it more encyclopedic. I like it the way it now is. Is there anything left to discuss? Does the name need to be changed? Can we end the deletion discussion and remove the tag? Escientist (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Deletion discussions normally last a full week, so the tag needs to stay there a little longer. There's no bar to further improvement, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - the latest version looks good -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename, current name is unforgivable Shii (tock) 11:46, 25 May 2011 (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.