Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Natural Edge Project


 * 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 Keep. Keeper  |   76  17:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The Natural Edge Project

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested speedy, then prod. Non-notable organization, fails WP:ORG. Most Google hits are press releases or links to its own web site. No Google News hits at all. Text is promotional in nature. Only indication of notability is winning a red-linked award. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom. Gromlakh (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, ditto. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Actually there are Google News hits. I've expanded the article a bit and beefed up the referencing. There are certainly enough sources for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have problems with thoe Google News hits. Most of them seem to be from one source called "Ecos." I didn't check them because the site requires registration to view them (and I don't want the spam that comes with that process — been there, done that), but the name would imply an organization that is predisposed to report favorably on isues that The Natural Edge Project might promote. In other words, I'm not sure they would qualify as an independent, reliable source. There are a couple of reliable sources the Google News hit, but that's not much. I'm still inclined toward deletion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was just pointing out that your statement, "No Google News hits at all", was untrue. Have you looked at the sources which I added to the article? Don't you think that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is a reliable source? I didn't actually use any of the "Ecos" ones, but anyway, why should sources which look like they specialise in environmental issues be discounted? Do we discount sources about athletes if they are from sports magazines? Sources about politicians written by political journalists? Sources about mathematics from mathematics journals? Of course we don't. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there weren't any Google News hits when I first ran it. Now I'm scratching my head, wondering what happened. I think my search included the word "The" as part of the string. However, I still don't believe this group meets notability standards, even with those sources. It's better, but still not good enough. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:26, 25 January 2008 (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.