Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JustGive

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JustGive (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)

No assertion of notability, very few sources, just one inbound link (Reddit), appears to be created by a (then) employee. Vectro (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per the existence of sources popping up in google news. Seeing substantial cites from CNET, Tech Times, Forbes, and countless more. Really, this is just scratching the surface. JustGive gets a LOT of hits on google news. So, keep. Fieari (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems to me that almost all of these sources are incidental mentions, rather than providing any deep information about the organization. Are you seeing many that focus specifically on JustGive, its programs, significance, impact, etc.? Vectro (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per the sources mentioned above, and add in the significant mention from PBS Newshour[1]. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk)
• Delete. Yes, thee are a lot of mentions and advertorials in G News. But the article is nonetheless primarily promotional,intended to promote the organization. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable organization. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I meant to comment sooner, it's simply PR for a company whose environment is PR and there's nothing else to suggest better simply this was clearly part of a PR campaign, all of these concerns compiled or not are enough to delete, as we are not a PR website. SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 4 October 2016 (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.