Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACT Australian Cleantech Index

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. ChetblongT C 03:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ACT Australian Cleantech Index

ACT Australian Cleantech Index (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Does not appear to be a notable article; no references listed. Gary King (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The ACT Australian Cleantech Index will be oficially launched on March 11 2008 but is already in use. The reference in the entry provides a link to the ACT Consulting website where the index will be published and updated. This index will provide the only current measure of the growth of the Australian cleantech industry and it compares to the market performance in general. To understand how this sector is growing will be highly notable as Australia increases its investment in renewable energy, water and other cleantech sub-sectors --Obrienj (talk) 06:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete; no sources to assert significance. Google hasn't even heard of it: <[1]> and nothing in any media reports either: <[2]> How a stock index could be launched without any media publicity confounds the heck out of me. Pegasus «C¦T» 09:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete; this appears to be self-promotion by the founder of ACT Consulting for an index that is not notable at present. Murtoa (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage will come through following the official launch on 11 March - as will the google search come on line as the index will be publicly available on the web. I will add in references to the media coverage as it comes through. --Obrienj (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: You have just conceded the very reason why we must delete this article. We simply cannot have an article on a subject unless there are reliable sources unrelated to the subject that have written about it at this point in time. We cannot assume there will be coverage in some point of time in the future. No third-party coverage right now means no article right now. It may be appropriate in 3-4 months' time to have an article on this when there are multiple sources that have written about it; but until then, no article will have to do. Pegasus «C¦T» 12:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


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.