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. MBisanz ^talk 22:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Energy Movement[edit]

New Energy Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. This is a soapbox essay aimed at promoting fringe science. It fails WP:OR ("unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position"), WP:SOAP ("Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising") and it's badly referenced too. andy (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite merge: there is a surprisingly good article on the movement in Alternatives for Personal and Community Transformation (12:5, Aug/Sep 2004) which suggests that the organisation has lasting notability. Ottre 14:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This makes no sense - merge with what? And this isn't an article about that organisation, anyway. andy (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the organisation of the movement... as in the verb organising. Merge to one of the grassroots-related articles. Ottre 23:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see that one coming! Completely yorked, middle and off. But I confess to continued puzzlement about your proposed merge. Grassroots is very interesting but I'm not sure which related article you had in mind. Merging with Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign might be rather fun, although perhaps a little confusing for the uninitiated. andy (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do you think this is encyclopedic enough for inclusion? The author is far from an independent source, but she has written a book as well. It's a shame there is no specific article on the grassroots/local future of the region, as the "Pacific Northwest homeland" idea used to have a lot of influence (as you say, also picked up in South Africa). Ottre 01:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm definitely half a bar behind you, but I'm doing my best. If I understand you correctly all "grassroots" articles are equivalent in some deep sense and could potentially be merged. So this article which is (I think) about a grassroots movement to "tap into an infinite amount of clean energy from anywhere in the Universe" can, on grounds of sociopolitical convergence, be merged into an unfortunately non-existent article about the putative land rights of north-western American aborigines? I have to say that I suspect that wikipedia conservatives would raise many fallacious and unreasonable objections. But hey, it may be worth the fight! andy (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - per nom. Also, this is spam, original research, and so poorly formatted that it makes little sense. I would not "salt" it, as it could be a real stub some day. Bearian (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (G11) for polluting Wikipedia with spam of the blatant nature. MuZemike 01:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - spam and original research.--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 04:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - per common sense. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. as unencyclopedic essay. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musician1955 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, may be something there is formatted like a Wikipedia entry instead of whatever that is, but there are no cites and it reads like OR. I could be convinced with a rewrite, but might as well delete until such an event happens.JRP (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to find a way of extracting a bit of meaning from it and stubbing it but I'm not up to the task - basically it's meaningless drivel. andy (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete When I first read this I thought it might be a copyright violation since it reads like a press release. Subsequent searches on Google came up with absolutely nothing relating to this movement excepting the Wikipedia article and their own website. Entirely original research and politically biased POV with no third party sources, non-trivial or otherwise to back up its claims. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 22:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. unsourced essay. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2009 (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.