Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green House Network
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Green House Network (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)
No coverage in independent sources. Official web site appears to have been abandoned and assigned to a German organization. Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable group and it appears that the group never received significant coverage, I found a 1999 article here but it seems it was written by a COI and mainly focuses with a global warming event that they were hosting. Aside from this, I found results to an Australian version of this group. This was undoubtedly a noble cause but it is not notable to Wikipedia standards. I have found results for what appears to be an irrelevant "Digital Greenhouse", this is one of the results. Although this news article also mentions that it was founded near the same time, it never mentions Oregon or "Network". Considering that the group was founded by a college professor, it is unlikely that it would've received significant coverage and probably mostly from school newspapers. However, I added "Oregon" to the search and found press releases here, here and here. I found a good article here but it only mentions twice, another article here that also only mentions three times and an extremely small mention here. There is also another mention here for an event. I also found another, what appears to be, a small mention here (scroll to the second to the last result). Unfortunately, it seems their sister group, Focus the Nation, also appears to be non-notable and advert-like thus I'll nominate that article later today. SwisterTwister talk 20:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Delete SwisterTwister asked me to comment here. I would unhesitatingly say delete, except for the article in the Christian Science Monitor [1] on one of their projects,. This is full feature coverage from an international newspaper. But it's about one specific aspect only, and SwisterTwister's evaluation of the other sources is correct. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 7 October 2012 (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.