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 no consensus. Trending towards a keep consensus as more sources are found.  Sandstein  05:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plant A Tree Today Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews nor gbooks. it has won an award but this has not been picked up in third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Seems to be copious hits all over the Googlescape for this Southeast Asian environmental organization. See, for example, CSR DIGEST. 33,400 regular Google hits for the exact phrase "Plant A Tree Today Foundation" makes for a big enough haystack to provide 3 keepers. This should have been tagged for more sources, not hauled to the murder pit. Carrite (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:GOOGLEHITS. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it plants trees, nothing remarkable about that and it doesn't get coverage in any major newspapers. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific Thai newspapers have you searched? Or do you mean to say that only American newspapers count? Here's NON-TRIVIAL COVERAGE on the site of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission. Seriously, part of WP:BEFORE should be: "Run a Google Search." Then when 33,000 hits for an exact organization name comes up, move along. Tag for sources, keep, improve. Carrite (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:GOOGLEHITS the number of hits is irrelevant. Peter banana gets over 28 million hits. perhaps a Peter banana article is in order. LibStar (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, THE HARLEM GLOBETROTTERS SUPPORT THE PLANT A TREE TODAY FOUNDATION, what more evidence does one need? And, believe it or not, the number of Google hits is HIGHLY CORRELATED to the question of whether there exist reliable independent sources about an article topic. This is a true fact. Bigger haystack = more needles. Carrite (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

using your logic, Peter banana is much more notable than this foundation, due to its google hits. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the Australian Embassy in Thailand TEAMED UP WITH THE PLANT A TREE TODAY FOUNDATION. But this didn't really happen since it wasn't in the New York Times, I suppose... Carrite (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one from the HUA HIN OBSERVER on the Plant a Tree Today Foundation's reforestation efforts in Thailand. Carrite (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I grow weary. Many more sources to be had... Terrible nomination. Carrite (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL please. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE please. Carrite (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and a trout for both. Carrite, as stated by LibStar Google hits are not indicative of notability, which is what was being indicated when Peter banana came up; practically anything can have a large number of Google hits. LibStar, it's best if you don't let Carrite get under your skin; sarcasm is not always read well online. As for the AfD: no reliable sources, be they newspapers, books, or whatnot, to prove notability, so it fails the General Notability Guidelines. Everything I've seen so far has been a blog or advertising site. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whack!. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I repeat again, large Google returns for very specific phrases are HIGHLY CORRELATED to the existence of multiple, independent, reliable sources about a topic. The principle is this BIG HAYSTACK = LOTS OF NEEDLES. I'll write an essay on it called WP:HAYSTACK sometime. Now, to the point of your matter. The Australian Embassy in Thailand, cited above, is not a "blog or advertising site." The Hua Hin Observer, cited above, is not a "blog or advertising site." So holster that fish, pardner! And those two independent sources attesting to notability, even if one wishes to write off everything else, are from about the first 40 or so Google returns out of 33,000. In the game of chess, losing players recognized the outcome of a game and resign well before checkmate. For some bizarre reason, in the Annihilate Information at AfD Game, everything gets played out to the last point... WP:BEFORE. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's AN ARTICLE FROM THE BANGKOK POST suggesting that "You could donate to a green organisation such as the Plant a Tree Today Foundation, which uses proceeds to plant new trees to offset the carbon emissions caused by your car." Carrite (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More NON-TRIVIAL COVERAGE of Plant a Tree Today Foundation from the website Fundraising.UK. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LIFESTYLE EAST ASIA suggests one celebrate Earth Day through a donation to the Plant a Tree Today Foundation. Carrite (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANOTHER BLOG ON PATT'S ACTIVITIES, usable as a source for further article development even if it's not so impressive at AFD. Carrite (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's COVERAGE OF ANDY STEEL, FOUNDER OF PATT, with photo, on page 4 of this publication of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. Steel spoke on "his foundation's Carbon Bank and Village Development Project for 48 rural villages in Thailand." Carrite (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Bear in mind, this is a Thailand-based organization and all these searches are in English. A machine translation into Thai returns zero results, which means something is awry, but this organization does undoubtedly have a Thai name, which should be searchable. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this is a piece on the Plant a Tree Today Foundation from the website of the UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME. Clearly independent, reliable, third party, non-trivial... Here's a passage of that that should explain much: Plant a Tree Today (PATT) Foundation works to raise awareness of global environmental issues, campaign for better environmental practices and take action against deforestation and climate change by planting trees. Plant a Tree Today (PATT) Foundation was founded in 2005 and is a UK Registered Charity and Thailand Foundation. PATT has operational offices in Bangkok, Thailand and Indonesia with representatives in Malaysia, India & South Africa. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WEBSITE OF PEACE CORPS THAILAND notes that "Works with major corporate sponsors, in part as a way to allow for carbon-credit transfers and corporate social responsibility programs. But, unlike some other donor-focused Foundations, PATT does not appear to focus their programs in Provinces where the donors have a commercial interest..." Carrite (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and so on... Carrite (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've added substantial information and sourcing to the article. Will the nominator and Delete voter please have another look? Carrite (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the references currently in use are either first party or from sources of questionable reliability. Many of the sources you have listed here have the same problem. As for the Google hits, I kindly refer you to WP:GHITS. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issue #142 of a Southeast Asian magazine? A newsletter of a United Nations-affiliated organization?!? Hmmmmm. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Carrite.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 23:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok. ok. So I have to work for it. Here's a link to a publication http://www.unescap.org/esd/bazaar/Flyer-Bazaar_V9.pdf sanctioned by UNESCAP.org.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 00:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a one line mention in a 2 page brochure is hardly indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, but I've honestly never seen ownership of deletion nominations before. Honest to god, there are more than three legit sources showing in the article, more above that I've linked, many more out in cyberspace in the 33,000 hit haystack, and the piece itself is now better than the one WP has for the National Arbor Day Foundation... Not that this one is so great mind you, that one just sucks. And still there's a battle, battle, battle, battle against the windmills... Carrite (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

so you think we should have a Peter banana article? there's at least 28 million hits to create an article out of? LibStar (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A one line mention in an article by a United Nations organisation has more weight (not that anybody cares) than a dedicated article in almost any publication (but weighting is not considered in any Wikipedia guideline). This charity is about planting trees. It is documented in many articles by many notable newspapers and organisations. Personally, I don't care about this discussion enough to continue. All I needed to do was confirm that my contribution was more than WP:JUSTAVOTE.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 08:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The opposition to this piece is still wiggling around, so HERE'S A PIECE FROM THE HULL DAILY MAIL. Paywalled, per usual these days. Here's A SCAN OF THE SAME ARTICLE, indicating it was printed on newsprint in a newspaper, which somehow becomes very, very important in these debates. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a pdf from the piece and uploaded it to my server, incorporating information from it into the article: Angus Young, "Campaign Branches Out," Hull Daily Mail, March 2, 2011. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

helpfull, but I am not sure if it is within copywrite requirements. Please consider asking the wp:helpdesk if you consider directly linking to it in the main page... L.tak (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete The article shown above is a borderline-qualification. As it is just as much about the starter of the group as it is about the group itself; whereas WP:notability (companies and organizations) clearly requires multiple reliable sources where it is the main subject. If one or two such articles are found I'll be happy to change my "vote"... L.tak (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per L.tak. I agree this is borderline qualification, but think it just falls over the keep barrier. As the article above is about the starter of the group actually starting PATT I feel it qualifies. Many of the other mentions above, although mostly trivial are in a range of reasonably reliable sources to get close to satisfying GNG. As this is a organisation operating out of Thailand mention in English publications carries some weight. I also second the two trouts. A Peter Banana search without the quotes can not be compared to a search with quotes as it would include hits that talk about "Peter Rabbit organic bananas" or "Andrew by Peter Lindbergh for Banana Republic". However the WP:Haystack argument is seriously flawed and the number of google hits should not be used to prove (or even disprove) notability. Also I am uneasy about the Seed award. Is there a source that mention PATTs involvement outside of PATT. It is disturbing that I can't find a mention of then on the SEED website [1]AIRcorn (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beautifully reasoned. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – It looks as if enough coverage has been identified to clear the bar of WP:N, even if not strongly. I also found a couple of brief but non-trivial mentions in The Bangkok Post and one in Computer Active, and one in New Straits Times. Also a brief mention in South China Morning Post. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:39, 27 May 2011 (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.