Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Matters Alliance (2nd nomination) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Power_Matters_Alliance_(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The result was Withdrawn SmartSE (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Power Matters Alliance

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

Fails WP:ORG. As far as I can tell, there are no sources specifically about this organisation. There have been mentions in reliable sources, but the sources are really about wireless charging not this organisation. It might become notable later, but it is too soon to have an article about it yet. SmartSE (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Their standard has been widely adopted, according to good references, so they are notable. If it was just wireless charging that was notable, I'd agree with the nom, but it's the standard they developed. I suppose we could change the name of the article to that of the standard. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with the nom's assessment with regards to WP:ORG. I find significant coverage in the article's cited sources. -—Kvng 03:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - whilst I'm still not sure the organisation is notable, the source added today shows that their standard definitely is. I will try and clean up the article when I have the time. SmartSE (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2013 (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.