Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple 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. Not sure why this was relisted after the nominator attempted to withdraw it. No one currently supports deletion. (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 15:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Energy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not follow Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines Dr meetsingh Talk 03:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding additional sources to comply with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines Greenbeanstew Talk 03:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added a link to a US News & World Reports article on the company's partnership with Sempra Energy. And, added a section regarding the company's position as the first third-party application developer on the White House's Green Button format. Please suggest additional changes to bring into compliance with the guidelines. Greenbeanstew Talk 03:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added citations to the Inc Magazine story and the Denver Post story. Please advise if further references are required to comply with the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines. I am confident the article is now compliant. Greenbeanstew Talk 04:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines at length, it is now clear that this article is compliant with the guidelines. Below are examples of each of the major elements outlined in Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline

"Significant coverage" -- while the articles cited vary in length and depth, the GreenTech Media and Inc. Magazine stories both go into great enough depth to meet this standard (http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/simple-energy-the-facebook-of-energy-saving/ and http://www.inc.com/30under30/donna-fenn/yoav-lurie-justin-segall-founders-simple-energy.html)
"Reliable" -- The New York Times and The Denver Post articles set the bar for reliability (as do a number of the others)
"Sources" -- I have now added nine independent sources to the article. All are from independent, well-respected regional or national publications. Most go into very great depth.
"Independent of the subject" -- None of the references indicate independent research, advertising, self-publication, or are in any way associated with the subject.

I thereby propose that this AfD discussion be closed and the notice be removed from the article. Greenbeanstew Talk 06:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources in the article look like enough to prove notability, e.g. these: [1][2][3]. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ' Greenbeanstew (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2012 (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.