Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharing is Giving
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 but I will undelete if anyone can show me coverage beyond an op-ed mention. W.marsh 23:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sharing_is_Giving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)
This article does not appear to show notability. --Alex 16:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Worse than that it appears to fall foul of Wikipedia:Autobiography and appears to have a dose of spam about it as well - X201 16:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the page removing some of the AUTO stuff and also the related links which are mostly represented in the regiving category and have no purpose in this article. --Razmear 07:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - seems to fail WP:WEB; no sources other than the website itself. Walton monarchist89 19:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no independent references. delldot | talk 21:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep There is clearly a grass/netroots movement in which Sharing is Giving matters, if you read several of the results from Google. The only real news source is an op-ed from The Chattanoogan [1], an online only newspaper with decent circulation. Very tough decision, but I'd err on the side of keep here. —siroχo 07:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - per Siroxo. Appears to have some sort of base notability and importance in its field, so I say keep for now. Better to err on the side of caution, as it may be notable. Part Deux 10:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable. Turgidson 21:09, 3 February 2007 (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.