Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green blog


 * 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. BJ Talk 00:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Green blog

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No sources other than the blog itself, and Twitter. Anti venin  16:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC) EDIT: Fails WP:N (due to the fact that there are no third-party sources.) I thought that much was obvious. Anti venin  18:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - So what is the reason for the nomination? No sources? That's not a valid reason for deletion. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  17:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. For a valid reason, how about a strong lack of notability? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but I am new here to Wikipedia - I am still learning much thanks to this article. But on what grounds should this article be deleted? Antivenin says its because its lacking any sources. That might be the case but I have only just begun with the article. And secondly I've seen many other articles on Wikipedia that has no sources. User 209.247.22.164 says that a reason could be "a strong lack of notability". But who are you to say that the article lacks notability? Notability means 1. The state or quality of being eminent or worthy of notice. 2. A prominent or notable person.. I know several Wikipedia articles I could claim lacks strong notability compared to green blog. Maybe it's just that you dislike our content and or ideologies? Leufstedt (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Which is why we have the AfD discussion.  It appears that the article does not explain its importance; has it reached the attention of national, or even local media?  Scholars?  Nonprofits?  For all I know, this blog is as little-noticed by the world as a school fundraiser.  It sounds to me like you're representing the blog, so tell us how it's notable enough to stay.  CB..  .(ö)  21:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment We can say something lacks notability if we can't find reliable third-party references. May I suggest you find some and add them rather than suggesting we're not 'green'. (I do dislike the attitude of 'If you're not with us, you're agin us'.) Reliable sources don't include blogs, most forums, Wikipedia - yes, even us, The National Enquirer, self published stuff. Is there anything in the press about your tree planting? In English or in Bahasa Indonesia - someone here will understand enough of it. Instead of getting hot under the collar, PROVE them wrong. Note that I am reserving my judgement for the moment. And note that most of the regular editors here would prefer an article to be sorted rather than deleted. When we say delete, it's often because something is irredeemably a blatant infringement of the rules, or because something is apparently non-notable. In the case of non-notability, this can be because it is patently non-notable (the Downby-in-the-Swamp Junior School Christmas Play of 1998) (as opposed to the 2001 play where the donkey blew up, the fire engine ran over a Santa on the way to put the headteacher out, and there was a picket outside protesting against the depiction of Mohammed in the Nativity scene), or it's non-notable because no outside reliable sources have been found or given. This is where we came in, isn't it? Peridon (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I see I have to make things clearer. When you search for the article in question on Google, you see no third-party sources from which you can verify information or establish notability. Any other questions? 122.162.247.112 (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - I have restored the above comment which was removed by User:Computerwiz908 with no reason. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  16:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment My apologies, the above comment was mine. I didn't realize I wasn't signed in. My view on this remains the same. This article is not notable and thus should be deleted. Thanks for restoring my comment, Jenuk1985. Anti  venin  17:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unable to verify notability. -- samj in out 16:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Currently not notable. However, no prejudice against recreation if notable external sources start to discuss this blog. LK (talk) 10:16, 24 March 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.