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. postdlf (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unencyclopaedic synthesis / original research, consisting of opinion - inappropriate in WP:TONE, problems with neutrality, which I cannot imagine could be salvaged into a coherent article without entirely rewriting. The topic of "energy careers" is subjective in inception.The only referenced facts are chosen as random representations.  Chzz  ►  13:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nonsense. Mark^Dask 18:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - which is such a pity, as it is such a pretty piece of spam. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original research. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2011 (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.