Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BASE - Basel Agency for Sustainable 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 Delete The sources given are all trivial mentions of the organization with a single sentence or are press releases. We can have an article about this when we have non-trivial independent reliable sources. JoshuaZ 15:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BASE - Basel Agency for Sustainable Energy

Contested prod. No evidence of notability, 330 unique ghits. Creator / primary editor appears to have a serious conflict of interest with the topic. Deiz talk 10:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 13:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Redirect to United Nations Environment Programme, where BASE may merit a passing mention as a local subsidiary foundation. It's not independently notable. Energybase (talk · contribs) is suspected of WP:COI. Shalom ^Hello 13:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Do this and this give significant coverage? Corpx 14:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to ascertain the relationship of either source with WP:RS. The second ref (German language) appears to be a press release. In any case, these would appear to be rather niche references. Deiz talk 15:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing wrong with niche references for niche subjects. COI is not reason to delete. DGG (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence these satisfy WP:RS. The relevant section of the first reference includes a mission statement and general blurb about what companies in this sector should aspire to do, rather than any independent discussion or coverage of the organisation itself. The second appears to be a press release. Neither appears to satisfy either the spirit or wording of the relevant guidelines. Neither reference is used in the article. The COI is not given as a reason to delete, rather an indicator that the article was not created by an independent editor who saw a need for this topic to be covered. So, with huge respect DGG, keep on what grounds? Deiz talk 11:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I should have said more. Keep on the basis of its status as one of the 6 UNEP Global Environmental Centres [1]. I think this would also apply to the article above. The Centres are each a separate program, with nothing really in common except being jointly sponsored by the UNEP and some other body, but I suppose they could be merged anyway. DGG (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the two sources produced by Corpx are the best there is, this foundation has no discernible impact on anything, and it's been around since 2005. The second source is not actually a press release, but a rehash of a newsletter by the foundation - that's why it does read like a press release. Neither of the two niche websites gives the impression of being a reliable source. A mention on a UNEP-related article will do fine. Sandstein 21:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletions. -- Sandstein 21:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 23:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 03:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge per Shalom,, Google did come up with a few notable hits, Govt. of India Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, United Nations: [2] [3] [4]. Dreadstar † 04:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Glad to see the additional refs, which look relevant. DGG (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated by >Deiz. There are actually no references to this article, only links to other webpages that do not assert the importance or significance of this organisation. Combined with the fact that no books or academic journals have been cited clearly indicates that this organization non-notable. --Gavin Collins 03:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.