Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green House Think Tank

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. Mkdw ^talk 04:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green House Think Tank

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

Delete for lacking of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Most of the sources that I found are either notices or descriptions of events in which the Green House Think Tank (GHTT) participated (example here), but where GHTT is not more than just mentioned, or articles or reports by members of its Board, especially Andrew Dobson, Molly Scott-Cato and Rupert Read. The nice report in the book The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Political Theory is by Board member Andrew Dobson, and the reports on the New Era Network are from Scott-Cato. There are other passing mentions such as in "Silver bullets and buckshot" by Tom Chance, but the best that I could find that was independent was "Green House event" by Sharon Garfinkel, not that it had that much coverage. The applicable guideline is WP:ORG, and GHTT does not begin to have any in-depth coverage that is independent. --Bejnar (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bejnar (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Bejnar (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bejnar (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As Bejnar states, this subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Curro2 (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about it as nothing appears to have been mentioned about what's it's done since it's founding in 2011. Doesn't appear to be any lasting impact beyond saying a bunch of people got together to warrant inclusion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2016 (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.