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The result was Nomination withdrawn. This one, I should definitely have checked for references of my own before nominating. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PETEC[edit]

PETEC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. Organization whose only assertion of notability is a number of patents and scientific papers, none of which were specified in the article. The deprodder stated that the group was mentioned on some web site, but the site in question is currently "under construction." Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cooperates with World Bank in Lighting Africa. --Nopetro (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a hasty prod, followed by a far-too-hasty AfD. I think there might even have been a speedy in there too that was simply wrong (patent claims are a perfectly adequate claim of notability sufficient to deflect a speedy, even if they're not an adequate demonstration of it to leave an article in place long-term)

The organization appears very likely to be notable, and sourceable as such. I'm confident the article's creator will demonstrate this in due course. If they don't, then we remind them of the need, if they still don't, then we look at deleting the article.

Would the nominator please learn that WP:AGF applies to article creators too and allow them some time to work on the article, when it clearly is still being worked upon. There is no rush here. This isn't a WP:BLP violation, or anything that might have real urgency behind it. Article creators, especially those new to the game, do use main articlespace as a workspace and we do see "works in progress" placed there. It is a mistake for AfD nominators to act over-hastily in that situation. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would disagree that this is not notable, and it clearly is still being expanded and improved. I would suggest a personal sandbox, but new article creators who don't use them are not neccessarrily in the wrong. a little insignificant 15:14, 13 May 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.