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 keep. No more delete !votes after cleanup, sufficient consensus that this is a notable organization. SoWhy 07:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propane Education and Research Council[edit]

Propane Education and Research Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article created by organization's employee is sourced to magazine with relationship to the Council and uncritical pro-industry outlets like "New marketing campaign designed to endear public to propane". WP:TNT and start over if a neutral editor is interested. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --- After all the promo is stripped away, PERC is an example of Washington power brokering, to the tune of $27 million a year, hiring ex-president's daughters. Rhadow (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is covered in detail in an Act of Congress, and in various other sources and is clearly sufficiently notable. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no evidence that it's covered in "various other sources", but even if that were granted here's what DGG has said about articles like this in the past: "Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason." Unless you are willing to do the WP:TNT lifting yourself, this kind of !vote just enables crap articles that exist indefinitely. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am struggling to see any clear "promotionalism" in the article or anything about it that would require starting over. Which sentences are so promotional that they require the article to be deleted? --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not everything covered by an act of congress is notable, at this trade group is an excellent example. There is no third party evidence for notability, and even if there is, the present article is a promotional directory entry. They have their own website, which is where this belongs. Indeed, judging by the article talk p., the promotional editor who created the article now actually only wants to keep the part which is a pure directory entry. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, without the fawning industry publications there isn't anything left. Repeating what I wrote on the article's talkpage: LP Gas Magazine has an editorial board including at least one member of Propane Education and Research Council [1], and the same person was formerly editor in chief of LP Gas. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment --- I reaffirm my Keep vote. Personal opinion (shared by Souter, Stevens and Kennedy). PERC is a boondoggle mandated by Congress. WP has articles on similar organizations, to wit: the Mushroom Council and the National Processed Raspberry Council. I added a paragraph that gives context. I suggest the promo stuff is now gone, so we can get rid of COI tag. Rhadow (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, it and the other checkoff programs are boondoggles. But is the Propane Council a notable boondoggle? You didn't address this question. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Yup. Propane was an early (earliest?) checkoff program outside the agricultural sector. The next one will be Cement and Masonry. Rhadow (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- WP:ADVOCACY on an unremarkable industry organisation. Does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH; coverage is WP:SPIP / routine. Industry associations are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I hear you, but I'm not sure that the article advocates for PERC any longer. I admit, after working on the article, that I advocate for an exposition of the $750 million collected in checkoffs each year. I appreciate K.e.coffman's substitution of remarkable for notable. If we dump this article, then we need to go after its peers, the Mushroom Council, National Processed Raspberry Council, and all the others in the list in Commodity checkoff program. They are similarly unremarkable. The Supreme Court disagrees though, finding checkoffs important enough to hear cases on the subject. Rhadow (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Original advocacy issues have been resolved by recent edits. Here are some additional sources from a news search: [2], [3], [4], [5] ~Kvng (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. This seems to get sufficient coverage in sources. bd2412 T 23:18, 27 August 2017 (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.