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. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cielo Wind Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The turnover indicates significance, but although I can find many mentions of it existing, I can't find evidence of WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Boleyn, can you describe the "many mentions" that you found during your WP:BEFORE search, so that other editors can benefit from what you've disovered? — Toughpigs (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• user:Toughpigs, it's mainly just websites confirming its existence and with a small amount of info [1] and as for news coverage, the best include a very brief name-check in Jewish Life News [2]. Boleyn (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. More than enough 3rd-party sources to verify its existence. So it comes down to notability, and I'll believe its claims of national significance. --Lockley (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user:Lockley, you are right that it definitely exists, and why do you believe its claims of national significance? It may be the case, just I haven't been successful in finding sources that prove it. I'm a bit worried as well as it reads as if it was written for promotion, and when I looked at the creator, he/she is an WP:SPI. Boleyn (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Boleyn:. Here's my reasoning, such as it is. Cielo does exist, which sounds dumb to say, but that's compared to many of the articles in the deletion queue, whose subjects hope to substantiate themselves by having a wikipedia page. Not the case here IMO. This article has straight objectively factual content, was never loaded with glorious promotional adjectives and claims, so the fact that the creator was an SPI with a possible COI seems less important to me. So the question narrows to notability. The nature & amount of the independent coverage discovered here and here and here, considered along with the company's own description of its impact on its industry, is convincing enough for a "keep". I wouldn't bet the ranch on it either way. hope that helps --Lockley (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. 18:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Coolabahapple (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)}[reply]

• Keep per the sources. Bando717 (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don’t think the sources indicated by Lockley demonstrate notability, and I don’t see how it meets WP:NORG. Mccapra (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. passes WP:GNG. ToBeFree (talk) 03:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments from obvious troll/sock accounts struck. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As written, with no references, fails WP:NCOMPANY, and sources I see (and cited above) are mentions in passing, which clearly fail that guideline or the wider GNG. WP:CORPSPAM, WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:13, 20 July 2020 (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.