Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Click4Carbon

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. Cirt (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Click4Carbon

Click4Carbon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article was Prodded as being spammy and having insufficient sources for notability, as well as having strong conflict of interest, being an article known to have been written for pay. I deprodded it, because at least the Guardian source is reliable--the Reteurs sources is Reuters Business Wire, which tends to reproduce what it gets sent. So I think it better to get a community opinion on it here. DGG (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. A search engine piggybacking on Google, there's no indication that this article meets either the website or organization notability guidelines. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Searching on google news and Lexis turns up a fair amount of coverage, although I think that the correct title would be Click 4 Carbon, which gets a lot more hits. Coverage includes. The coverage is substantial enough to satisfy criterion #1 of WP:WEB and the GNG. Coverage includes:
  • A piece from Fair Home, I'm not familiar with this publication, but it appears to meet WP:RS as a signed piece by a staff writer.
  • An article from Triplepundit, once again not a familiar publication, but one that passes the reliable sources guidelines, and devotes 3 paragraphs in a larger article to Click4Carbon.
  • Another story from an environmental news source.
  • For those who prefer good old-fashioned print sources, please see the story "Pioneering Midlands Shows the Way" in the [[Birmingham Evening Mail], November 18, 2008, p. 57. It's a short piece but discusses Click4Carbon in some depth.
  • Although they do not necessarily count as significant attention, I also find small mentions in a number of mainstream media outlets including the Houston Chronicle and the Leicester Mercury.
• While most of the attention to this seems to have come from sources that focus on environmentalism and green energy, that is hardly surprising (after all math is mostly written about in math journals) and I think there's been enough coverage with some in the mainstream media to clearly show notability. Cool3 (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete More than one reliable source is required. Advert/COI, etc. I was prodder. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Strikeout reading Cool3's above comment. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  Is the implication of this statement that the sources above should not be considered reliable? Cool3 (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  No, I hadn't read your comment. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete Due to a conflict of interest, this article requires a complete rewrite to comply with guidelines, specifically WP:NPOV. Aditya ^α _ß 17:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Evidently notable. We do not delete the article in order to rewrite it. Please see our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: The sources haven't convinced me of it's notability. They're partly reproduced PR material at the time the site went live, the Guardian piece is a very simple Q&A on it's blog (and is more about the couple than the site) and if the Triplepundit source means they're notable then so is the Greenbook facebook application in the same article. In other words, I find them to be very weak sources for showing notability. To me they add up to "the concept was interesting and/or topical so their PR releases scored a few hits" - that's not the same as notability though. Ha! (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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.