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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. It's not mentioned at Issues relating to biofuels so there's no reason to redirect. Should that change, happy to restore the history for a redirect. Star Mississippi 01:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Biofuelwatch

Biofuelwatch (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)

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

original research (violates WP:NOR), does not meet notability criteria. Few reliable sources available. Because of the non notability in the article, it has been neglected.

Possible redirection to: /info/en/?search=Issues_relating_to_biofuels DashDashUnderscore ( talk) 16:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DashDashUnderscore ( talk) 16:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:48, 28 April 2023 (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.