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 except signature updates.

The result was Delete, does not meet notability standards for cooperations. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Was prodded, but then removed by an IP. Reads like an advert and possibly a non-notable company. -WarthogDemon 15:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I believe it fails WP:CORP. ArcAngel (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. This is not a public utility, but a consulting group. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It does read like an advert, but I think that this consulting firm is notable. Looking through a Google News search, most of the hits are when the opinion of a person from this consulting firm is included in the article (eg these New York Times articles [1] [2] [3]). There are some articles behind paywalls that are about this group Mark A. Schwartz joins PIRA as managing director PIRA gives big points to biggest oil companies. Bláthnaid 20:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What the NYT articles reveal is that people from this consultancy group have been called and quoted by reporters in stories about other things entirely. They don't really tell us anything about the company itself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that is why I differentiated between articles including an opinion from a person and articles about this group. To me, the presence of so many articles that include opinions from members of this group indicates that they are an important source of information in their field. This says that 300 companies use PIRA as a consultant. A tiny bit of information here There is a snippet view from Google Books here that unfortunately cuts out possibly useful information. I don't have access to articles that are behind paywalls, but what I can find indicates to me that this group is notable. Bláthnaid 23:51, 3 March 2008 (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.