Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NetHope

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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NetHope

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

This seems like a worthwhile organization and I'm sorry to have to AfD it, however, after removing a raft of uncited claims from the article I realized all that was left was essentially references to the organization's website itself. A thorough search of Google News finds a smattering of RS references, but all in passing and non-substantive (e.g. "Microsoft Philanthropies has partnered with more than a dozen nonprofits to deliver support to refugees around the world. Grants to NetHope, Mercy Corps, and the International Rescue Committee have helped those organizations offer food, water, housing, ..." [1] I also checked JSTOR and it is unmentioned in any peer-reviewed journal and the group returns no results in a search of Google Books. BlueSalix (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I really hate the scenarios in which there are 20 deletions painstakingly made before an article is hauled to AfD, which is the case here. Either it is notable or not, why gut and gut and gut and gut — and THEN ask for deletion? It makes no sense. THIS is what the article looked like before nominator peeled nearly 10K of content away... Carrite (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Addendum: Slight hyperbole here, I count 12 separate edits deleting material prior to nomination in this specific case. Carrite (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am working from the premise that a consortium of NGOs that has been in existence since 2001 is probably notable. So let's start looking. Here is one item dealing substantially with the topic: Gisli Olafsson, "Why We Should Turn To Technology When Disaster Strikes," albeit by a NetHope employee and thus not fulfilling the independent status we need for publications to count towards GNG at AfD. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the deleted footnotes, Nancy Gohring, "NGO Networks in Haiti Cause Problems for Local ISPs," PCWorld, Feb. 22, 2010, deals substantially enough with the consortium to count towards GNG, in my view. Carrite (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the deleted footnotes: "IT Lends a Helping Hand: An Interview with NetHope's Edward Granger-Happ," CIO-Insight, Jan. 28, 2005. You will need to click the PRINT button to see the very long, presumably reliable, independently-published interview. Blocked by a NOROBOTS script from Archive.org, unfortunately. 'CIO-Insight is part of Ziff-Davis and this absolutely counts towards GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the footnotes showing: Todd Cohen, "Waves of Cash," Non-Profit Times, March 1, 2005. Includes three short paragraphs on NetHope, calling them "an alliance of 15 of the world’s largest relief organizations that serves as their international telecom department" — which not only goes towards GNG but demonstrates encyclopedic significance. There's probably more out there, but I have seen enough. Carrite (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fulfills GNG based upon the above sources listed. Carrite (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Fundamentals of Information Systems
Information and Communication Technology for Peace
The Retirement Activities Guide
Principles of Information Systems
Nonprofit Guide to Going Green
PC World
The Irish Times (subscription required)
The Irish Times (subscription required)
Stanford Social Innovation Review (subscription required)

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.