Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CarbonInsights.org

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. kur ykh 04:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CarbonInsights.org[edit]

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

This website is awfully new and doesn't yet have the significant coverage in independent sources required by the general notability guideline and WP:WEB. Them From Space 23:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion point: We disagree and will compile additional external, independent sources. Romeo423 (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Romeo423 (talk) — Romeo423 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. The sources currently on the page are unreliable. Google search turns up nothing reliable. Google News turns up nothing at all (not surprising for a site founded a month ago). I suspect the site is just too new to have even had a chance to be notable. It may become notable in the future, but for now it should be deleted. Also: The creator and (thus far) sole editor of the article shares the name of the site's "Sim 3 avatar and Editor-in-Chief". » scoops “5x5„ 04:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. It looks like it is a fresh released magazine which is gaining coverage as we speak. The content of the wiki page is strictly information which I appreciated. I think it is worth giving it more time and if it gets no further coverage another AFD should be called.Gia_72, 11 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gia 72 (talk • contribs) — Gia 72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete/Userfy It's possible that the magazine will become notable (which means: be written about by independent, reliable sources) in the future. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The magazine has no notability at this point (which means, it has not been recognized by independent reliable sources), so the article does not belong on Wikipedia. Romeo423 has gone to a lot of trouble to develop this page, so it should be userfied back to his userpage rather than deleted. That way it can be reposted, AFTER independent reliable sources report on the magazine and confirm its notability. However, please carefully read WP:RS and WP:N before reposting it, because the Wikipedia community takes a very dim view of reposting deleted articles if the problems haven't been fixed. (By the way, Gia 72, you kept trying to add the facebook page to the article, but facebook is a perfect example of something that is NOT a "reliable source" in the Wikipedia sense. Likewise twitter.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have to judge the sources that are available right now, and there doesn't seem to be any (except for blogs and the like). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2010 (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.