Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EnergySage (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EnergySage

EnergySage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable business, all sources found are PR. What's in the article is brief mentions of the company in otherwise RS. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true at all. I was very careful to use only legitimate articles and coverage. QRep2020 (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Business is notable simply for the scores of journal articles and policy papers that reference its data, per https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_vis=1&q=%22EnergySage%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,22. The company is a significant subject of all referenced sources and none of the sources come off of newswires or purchased media. The material from government websites like energy.gov are hardly press releases.

I recognize that someone else tried to pull a fast one back in 2015, but independent coverage of the company is leagues beyond what it was then. QRep2020 (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this please? Clearly there isn't any interest in removal and I suspect that the nomination jumped the gun. QRep2020 (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis and further input needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: I'm not very impressed with most of the sources currently on the article, as they are largely either not about the company, is corporate puff, or are passing mentions, as mentioned by the nominator. I also am not impressed with the reasoning from QRep, as many articles listed at the link are likewise not about the company. The reason I'm voting weak keep, though, is there appears to be a couple of decent RS here: [[1]] If the decision is against keeping, I'd suggest draftifying this one as there does seem to be indicators that more coverage will emerge here shortly User:Let'srun 02:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We had a recent "no consensus" for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ImportGenius, which is another company that provides data with a slightly different business model. We clearly have a lack of established consensus on evaluating notability for organizations/companies that are reputable data providers. —siroχo 03:05, 1 August 2023 (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.