Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowdrise


 * 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. Although some editors commented that the cited sources generally focus on the subject's founders rather than the subject itself, most editors were convinced that these sources add up to pass the relevant notability threshold. Deryck C. 20:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Crowdrise

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Still questionable for notability and independence considering the coverage is only because of its founder, Ed Norton, and the listed sources are either trivial because of that or actuslly simply guides or something like this. I'm not confident about a merge since other owners are listed. SwisterTwister  talk  15:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  15:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  15:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

 References  References
 * Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available book and news sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America1000 21:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. An actual search for sources reveals further to the examples given above the following, and it all adds up to an article on quote "the world's largest and fastest growing fundraising platform dedicated exclusively to charitable giving" that passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Citations have been added. — Sam Sailor Talk! 13:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep but add some real content. The sources section shouldn't be longer than the actual article content. It is possible to over-source an article. Callsignpink (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Change to "delete"; the analysis of sources below is convincing. //Original comment: "if the sources are there, then the article should be longer. Otherwise, looks like a case of an overcite and makes the company look non-notable." K.e.coffman (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Analyzing the first list of sources found that the first source is simply a mainly interview and only actually rarely talks about the company itself, so it's not convincing substance and coverage. As for source #2, I myself mentioned this one and it's only an event listing and is focused with Ed Norton himself, the following sources are either focused at Ed himself, local coverage and the worst one so far is "Charity and Philanthropy For Dummies" which itself is a self-made listing (That's not substance or coverage at all). Even the listed sources at the second list are mainly either group listings, trivial coverage or focused with Ed himself. As I noted with my nomination, there's still nothing at all actually suggestive of its own substance, outside of Ed and any other people, to have its own convincing article. SwisterTwister   talk  05:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I immediately found sources that talk about the company as the focus of the publication such as . The company is mentioned fourteen times in the article in nearly every paragraph. And then there's this TIME article that has several paragraphs about the company. This along with the other sources found appear to address WP:BURDEN almost to the point of WP:BOMBARD. The article needs a lot of work and the company doesn't seem that amazing to me, but these are personal opinions and seemingly WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues that can be dealt with at an editorial level. Mkdw talk 04:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - The two emphasized above in this comment mentions those two, but they are still limited mentions and coverage; both of them also particularly focus with Ed himself, and that's not surprising why this would also get attention. All of this still needs better analysis as simply tossing links are not equalizing to the same thing as actual substance; thus this is best relisted. SwisterTwister   talk  04:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The TIME article is almost exclusively about the company if you read it. It only mentions Norton twice. The other article has 11 paragraphs that talk about the company. I think you're discrediting the articles too casually. Limited mentions... hardly. Mkdw talk 04:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What about Detroit News article? It's almost entirely about the company and has limited mentions of Norton. Four times in two paragraphs. There's obviously an association with Norton, but just because an article mentions his connection a few times doesn't make the whole article about him. In addition, in the New York Times article, there are a total of 15 paragraphs. Nearly half the article if not more is about Crowdrise directly. The other half is split between Norton and the marathon. This is all more than enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw talk 04:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it may be appropriate to merge this content with the Norton article, where Crowdrise is already mentioned. Most of the coverage is driven by Norton anyway. The section could be named "Business ventures" or similar. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources that have the company as the primary focus of the article. A standalone article for this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm seeing very little policy based arguments here and this seemingly becoming more and more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT because the keep camp has clearly demonstrated articles that condict the delete camp's arguments. Mkdw talk 17:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, oppose merge. The subject has received significant coverage in ABC News, The New York Times, The Detroit News, TechCrunch, Time, among other articles. I oppose a merge because there is enough material in the sources to justify a separate article. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Crowdrise to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 05:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This comment is not acknowledging how the contents mainly focus with Ed himself, even either having Ed mentioned first and then even completing it with a photo of him; all of this about him is also understandable since he would be the celebrity of it. Notifying {{U|DGG} for his analysis of all this. SwisterTwister   talk  06:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." In the publications I reviewed, Crowdrise was either the main topic of the source or was covered nontrivially even if it was not the main topic. Cunard (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * While is a highly respected editor and I'm sure they would give a fair assessment, I strongly advise you  to stop pinging targeted editors into AFD discussions. I have seen you ping DGG into multiple AFDs and the practice of pinging an editor of your choice into a conversation amounts to WP:CANVASS and campaigning.  Mkdw talk 17:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not canvassing as users who want to be notified are exempt from that. SwisterTwister   talk  17:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no exemption in the canvassing policy. Regardless of whether they asked to be notified about company related AFDs or merely AFDs that you've nominated. You're selectively notifying them about either AFDs you're nominating/participating -- and I don't see it being more broad such as notifying them about a particular subject or topic because it's not being done where every company article you're notifying them. It's targeted. Mkdw talk 17:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.