Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network for Good

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. → Call me Hahc21 02:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Network for Good

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating after prod. This article was created by the eponymous username about seven years ago, and although the blatant marketing has been toned down, no one has produced any sources to establish notability since. Prod was removed by an editor who noted it has a lot of Google hits. ~T P W 14:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A significant web presence. It doesn't improve our coverage of charities to pretend it doesn't exist or that it isn't notable. Some of the many many sources evident on the web: New York Times: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Wall Street Journal: [7][8] Some potentially useful hits from HighBeam: [9][10][11][12]. [13][14]. And this for more detail about the 2005 merger with Groundspring: [15]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete VERY poorly sourced as it relies almost 100 percent on it's own website. It fails the notability test, and a "significant web presence" is easy to promote through those NY Times articles (and therefore don't qualify as reliable sources per WP:ADVERT). Dragonfire X (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Upon a source review of those posted above by User:Arxiloxos, this topic meets WP:CORPDEPTH. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos' findings/improvements to the article. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Gongshow talk 19:29, 1 May 2014 (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.