Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portfolios with Purpose


 * 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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 06:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Portfolios with Purpose

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

unimportant charity that has managed to get a good deal of its press releases published. This is one of them.  DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 11:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 11:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't understand how one's opinion that it is an "unimportant charity" has to do with the deletion policy. The article is well cited and is a functional organization.A2citrix (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The public has a right to information on any charity they wish to research. Each individual can decide if it is important or not, based on their own standards. Every charity has a right to post information to the public. Portfolios with Purpose is an amazing organization that I personally want to see thrive. I'm sure many others agree. I can also say the people behind this charity are upstanding and amazing individuals. Furthermore, I recommend this deletion request for deletion due to poor spelling and grammar and improper use of personal opinions. Although I doubt that is possible, unfortunately. Wheresarnie (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC) — Wheresarnie (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:N, not every charity has the "right" to a Wikipedia entry. The rest of your argument is irrelevant. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 16:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Having checked the sources, I find that only Forbes and pionline can truly be regarded as independent. The latter is a news website "media of limited interest and circulation". Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 16:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If additional mass-media sources are cited is that sufficient to retain the article? A2citrix (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Depends; see WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH for details, but the gist is that you need in-depth coverage by multiple, independent sources. So if you find two news sites/papers that produced an article based on the same press release, than they don't help. But multiple interviews like the Forbes one are more likely to confer notability. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 17:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the assistance. I would much rather the bias be toward the retaining the article and fixing it than to find a reason to delete it. A2citrix (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Have added additional citations and more recent non-press release information from Bloomberg, CNBC, Wall Street Journal A2citrix (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Vote retracted; I'll leave it to others to decide. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 10:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:02, 14 January 2014 (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.