Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shipley 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shipley Energy

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

Local company wit local sources. routine business of energy distribution, no special importance shown . DGG ( talk ) 08:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to its website, it has almost one century of history and serves 15 counties in Pennsylvania. It is of interest only at the state level, but this is more significant than being only of interest at the city or county level. I haven't done enough research to evaluate notability, but think this one warrants a closer look. CorporateM (Talk) 17:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain. "Shipley Energy is the largest family-owned energy provider in the central Pennsylvania area."(York Enterprise). BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I tagged this page as having no references back in 2011 and it still has not had any references added. With the external links being for company internal websites, there is nothing in this article that did not come from within Shipley Energy. That makes it look a lot like advertising. Jeremiah McGowan (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retain. Seems Notable within the context of its area, which is a fairly big area. The problems with WP:Advertising have nothing to do with WP:Notability. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - notable in its area. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2015 (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.