- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Carbonfund.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page was created back in 2006, and subsequently expanded over the years by many suspiciously COI accounts, which included obvious ones like Carbonfundorg and Carbonfund. The page came to my attention after I recently blocked Emcarlsondc for using Wikipedia as a promotional platform, who also appears to be the president of this organization. One of the associates from this organization Lizschwartzer also recently updated the article directly. Now back to the article itself, I initially tagged the page for COI, as there are many extraneous information and the usual name dropping for non-notable organizations trying to assert notability, but a further look suggest that it may not meet WP:ORG sufficiently. The current state of sourcing in this article largely fails WP:ORGIND, and a Google News search for more sources to find notability for this organization returned mostly sources that are either 1) passing mention 2) press release 3) or simply fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Alex ShihTalk 22:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Google news...returned mostly"? That leaves an exception like:
- Story, Louise (January 9, 2008), "F.T.C. Asks if Carbon-Offset Money Is Well Spent", New York Times, retrieved 2017-10-28,
Carbonfund.org, for example, which provides offsets to companies like Amtrak and Allstate, uses the offset money in three ways: to plant trees; to subsidize wind and solar power so that it can be sold at more competitive prices; and to purchase credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange, which barters among hundreds of companies trying to reduce their emissions.
- Most of the nomination is irrelevant personal attacks. Unscintillating (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Meets WP:GNG, although possibly on a somewhat milder level. Below are some sources, several of which are paywalled. Concerns with promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America1000 08:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I also saw some good snippets on Google scholar. [1], "...this paper examines the effect of the film on carbon offsets purchased through Carbonfund.org...Two aspects of Carbonfund are notable..." Unscintillating (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources above. Looks notable enough to me. The possible COI is now flagged with a template. If there are problems with the content, they can be fixed with editing, and by adding more independent sources. -- Gpc62 (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2017 (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.