Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Givedon


 * 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. I don't see how there is sufficient evidence for notability atthis point. No prejudice against re-creation if good 3rd party sources can be found.  DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Givedon

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

overly promotion, the cited sources are not indepth coverage but more verify its existence. no coverage in gnews. LibStar (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * keep - I shall edit the article to ensure it is encyclopedic and add additional references over the next several days. Uptodateinfo (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete suprised it wasnt just tagged Blatant advertising, observations based on this version(current version). ref#1(crunchbase) is wikitype site its one anyone can advertise their company on no editorial oversight. ref#2,ref#4 are self references to Givedon, Ref#3 is is company name search proviving the company exists and has the appropriate registration details as required in the UK, doesnt demostrate any notability just gives the date of registration. Thats the reference for the lead and the istory section. The next section is titled Service not one of the seven references used in this section refer to Givedon they are about other companies and their business activities. Delete per WP:NOTABILITY as there is no assertian of notability by significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the company. Gnangarra 07:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * keep - I'm sorry to see that my edits do not appear to meet your expectations, I am horrified at the suggestion of blatant advertising. I shall continue to edit and reference the article to ensure it is encyclopedic, and meets your expectations and the ethos of Wikipedia. Uptodateinfo (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * struck out the keep as you have already said that once. Gnangarra 12:24, 9 April 2010 (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.