Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treehoo


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Treehoo

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

Why should we chop down Treehoo? It doesn't pass WP:RS, WP:WEB or WP:ORG. Do you think this belongs on a one-way trip to the Wiki-sawmill? Ecoleetage (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - no reliable soruces to establish notability - Whpq (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Off to the woodchipper I'm afraid. Insufficient notability for recently started enterprise. It's "reduce", in this case, so no need to reuse or recycle... ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait! I´ll add more info. But in any case the articles about "Ecocho" and "Click4carbon.com" also should be delated as they are copycats of Treehoo.com, or what???
 * Comment - Generally, the existence of other articles is not relevant. The merits of the article are judged independently.  But as for the other articles, they have references from reliables sources.  This article has none, and I was not able to find any when I did a search.  If you can demonstrate the necessary coverage, then article can be kept. -- Whpq (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can ask an for the article to be moved to your userspace so you can work on it. But the subject needs to be covered substantially in independent and reliable media in order to be included in this encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - fairly many hits using Google, where Treehoo and its purposes are mentioned by other sources. Tomas e (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - can you point out some of these sources? I was unable to find anything but brief mentions.  -- Whpq (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - See: http://www.greenmuze.com/news/resources/691-top-green-search-engines-.html

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/best-green-search-engines.php (Treehugger has a page rank of 8/10 and thinks Treehoo is one of the best green search engines) http://www.frankrozendaal.nl/2008/09/28/trend-steeds-meer-zoekmachines-voor-milieu-en-goede-doelen/ http://lesettes.snowbroader.eu/2008/06/
 * Comment - The site ranks no 2 in msn.com if you search for "green search engine".


 * Delete. Flunks WP:WEB, and suffers bad peacockism. THF (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Since when does Wikipedia censor because of "bad peacockism"? Isn't there an article on Liberace?


 * 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.