Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earning to give


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Onel 5969  TT me 12:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Earning to give

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Pawg14 (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)* Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 18. —cyberbot I  Talk to my owner :Online 04:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Limited notability. Repetitive citations, mostly to non-notable blog posts. Some inclusions are so loosely connected (e.g. tithing) that they're close to original research. Pawg14 (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC) — Pawg14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I've cleaned up and shortened the article a lot and no longer think it should be deleted, though it could still be more polished and neutral.Pawg14 (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC) — Pawg14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep but stubbify as it is almost entirely based on primary sources and non-RS like the transhumanist internet forum LessWrong. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as there are multiple WP:RS about the topic, e.g. BBC, NYT. Quartz, Oxford ethics blog, Washington Post. I wouldn't call the posts by Will MacAskill primary sources. He's just an advocate of earning to give, not the owner of it. But even without his (the Quartz and Oxford ethics blog), still seems to have plenty. Tempo mage (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC) — Tempo mage (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  (strike comment by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC))
 * Keep Growing movement; perhaps add other sources? --Davidcpearce (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep It's easy to find reliable sources that discuss this. People have already mentioned various news stories, but there's also this book and this book (and this book and this book and this book, though I'm not sure those qualify as independent). There's also this source, this source and this source in German. Deletion is not cleanup. NeatGrey (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Tempo mage's list of sources. This definitely meets notability standards. &mdash; Eric Herboso 20:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.