Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Listen Fundraising

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listen Fundraising

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

Does not meet WP:CORP . Vast majority of sources are explicitly on the org's own website or founders personal website.

[1] and [2] both written by the founder as well.

Won two industry level awards.

In my WP:BEFORE the ONLY WP:RS I came across [3] and [4] which appears to be the only reliable source covering the company, which is accusing the multiple-company organization of graft and corruption. Unsurprisingly that source is not used in the article! Gaijin42 (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gene93k, I have read through your points made above though i don't believe this falls under the criteria of a deletion tag. It is stated that this should only be the case if the page is beyond repair, which this is not.

I Have also made some notes on the talk page but also wanted to put forward some notes here. The main point you mentioned above was that the vast majority of sources are of the org's own website or the website site, though this is not and has not been the case. At the time of the deletion tag being added there were 5 of the 14 references being from primary sources. This was not the vast majority though i have taken on board your feedback to improve the page and will continue to do so. The page has many references that are not included in the above such as The Guardian [5] Katrinamoris2014 (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Gaijin42, I made the comments above, Gene93k is just adding some sorting information to the deletion discussion.

There are currently 11 sources used in the article

1 & 2 tonycharalambides.com (same link)
3 listenfundraising
4 written by tony charalambides
5 Guardian written by Tony Charalmbides
6 PR website just saying go listen on the org's website
7 written by tony
8 written by tony ( same as #5)
9 same as #4
10 & 11 minor industry awards

Hi Gaijin42, I have now removed the primary sources 1, 2 and 3 (Tony Charalambides website and the companies website). I will continue to work on building references from third party credible sources. However, the page as it stands is not worthy of deletion. The article reads neutrally without a bias point of view, all content is factual and is in no way promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katrinamoris2014 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires independent sources to demonstrate notability the above do not show that. Nor does using sources tightly coupled with the topic help WP:NPOV Gaijin42 (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2014 (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.