Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carbon Purging

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. — Aitias // discussion 02:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Purging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Does not seem to meet criteria for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the same type of company as Sandbag (non-profit organisation), which has an article. Seems Carbon Purging is larger in scope in that it covers not only EU permit trading but also US permit trading. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non notable organisation that falls well short of meeting WP:ORG. Carbon Purging returns 38GHits, 2 wikis and 36 unrelated to the organisation. Nuttah (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although fairly non-notable currently, that is only due to it being a new organization. Its scope is larger than said similar article (Sandbag (non-profit organisation)). Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable with potential is still non-notable.Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I saw a blurb about it on the news in Derry, NH. I'd say the news covering it is notable. Zmscwst (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: WP:ORG "Primary Criteria" says that coverage in secondary sources (like a newspaper) must be significant. A blurb is not significant coverage. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: Unless you saw the news item, please do not assume its significance. I will try to contact the person who posted that to find out what, exactly, blurb means. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Note I apologize. What I should have said is that generally speaking, what most people would call a blurb would not be significant. I hope we will get a response as to how detailed the news coverage actually was. Jo7hs2 (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Userfy - I don't think there's any reason to wait for a response from whoever is supposed to be getting back to someone about some news report they might have seen. If there are no references added to an article after being listed for deletion for 5 days, the article is usually deleted. It can always be re-created if and when a source is found. I suggest it be removed from article space in the meantime and userfied for possible recreation at some later date, rather than holding up the deletion debate to wait for some hearsay evidence. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:23, 28 Dec 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. Oroso (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: WP:CSD#A7 certainly does seem to fit. The article "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" and required by A7, and the article is about the organization itself, and does not make "any credible claim of significance or importance" so WP:CSD#A7 does apply. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Please provide an example of an article on an organization where the subject's importance is discussed. Also, should the article not be about the organization itself? If not, what should it be about? Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah that's admittedly shakey grounds, as who's to say what makes a group important? But here: United Way of America seems to do an adequate job, whereas Carbon Purging says "The organization was announced in 2008 by environmentalist Mike Jewett." The organization was announced -- the article doesn't even say that they've done anything yet, are organized in any way, or have any members. It just says some guy announced that he created an organization, and then describes its website. I'm not sure what the exact threshold is for the assertion of importance or significance, but this article sure hasn't met it. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:54, 29 Dec 2008 (UTC)

  I gotcha. One small clarification point - when you say "organized in any way", what do you mean by that? Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  A list of officers and roles, a description of its hierarchy, mode of operation, office locations... stuff like that. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:04, 29 Dec 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  See also Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, Microsoft, Apple, Inc.. All of those articles in some way make it clear why the organization is notable. It may not be openly stated, but a quick reading of the first few paragraphs makes it clear. Kinda like porn and the SCOTUS, you know it when you see it. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  But... No amount of editing can make a non-notable organization notable. In this case, the organization is just not notable enough to merit inclusion. It fails the common-sense stink test. Just announced, mostly unmentioned, with no proof of achievements. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  OK. Thanks for the good info! Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reliable, independent sources are present in the article and I have been unable to find any. Without reliable sourcing there is no way to verify the information in the article or show the group meets the general notability guideline or the specific guideline for organisations. Whether the group will become notable in the future is should not be relevant as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Guest9999 (talk) 21:23, 30 December 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.