Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raising for Effective Giving

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. The recent cleanup seems to be a reasonable place to start improving and WP:TNT no longer applies. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raising for Effective Giving

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

This article was created by Ruairi Donnelly, a blogger for the organization. He has also been the primary contributor. The article has a promotional tone, and the organization doesn't meet the general notability guideline. Most of the sources are from the organization itself. Pawg14 (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC) — Pawg14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Concerned that a lot of sources are blog posts and apparent comments in poker forums but will hold back a bit for consideration of any other sources, if they exist. Noted that there's an Aftonbladet article but I don't read the language. Tages-Anzeiger also has what looks like a legit piece. However these may be the only two citations in the article that are not poker blogs, podcasts, individual blogs, SPS or other non-RS. - Brianhe (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to also be an NPR piece and this piece by Bluff Magazine, which is about poker, but looks like an actual magazine and not just a blog. NeatGrey (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one paragraph by what looks like an actual magazine. This looks like an interview by a German TV channel. I don't speak German, though. NeatGrey (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow. "a community of professionals who aim to have a positive impact on the world", as the lead sentence... wow. I'm tagging this with newsrelease and COI, since those will have to be fixed even if the article is kept. NeatGrey (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I agree with the concerns about promotional tone (and will try to edit if I have time), the notability seems to be there, especially with the large amount of coverage in mainstream poker news outlets. Tempo mage (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC) (strike comment by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Want to notify @Parg14: (because this has been the reasoning behind several deletion requests by you) and readers that notability is not determined by the average citation. Statements like "Most of the sources are from the organization itself" might indicate poor article quality, but not a lack of notability. See "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as the key qualification in WP:GNG Tempo mage (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC) (strike comment by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I will make some edits now, I think the organization is sufficiently notable to keep the page. Archie2247 (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC) — Archie2274 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment The sources that are substantially about the subject are few, and that's without looking at whether they are RS. There are blog posts and youtube videos, and many references are the organization's own web site. Some of the links to poker sites that I looked at did not mention the charity. It will be hard to assess this unless the article is purged of all of the non-RS, which is the majority of what is here. Otherwise, reviewers have to wade through a lot of cruft to make an assessment. As an example, the entire section called "Representation at 2014..." is about the poker players, not about the charity. That whole section should be removed. Then, an evaluation needs to be done of the remaining sources to see if they can be considered reliable. As an example for that, the Lee Davy articles in calvinayre.com is not under editorial control, as per the disclaimer that follows the article. It would be useful if those advocating !keep would indicate which of the sources they consider to be reliable, so we could narrow down the discussion. The only realistic option I see is TNT once reliable sources are identified. LaMona (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:TNT. Agree 100% with LaMona, although it may be notable, this article is unworkable and the best solution for the encyclopedia is to start over. Brianhe (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this mess. In the mess of press releases and poker blogs, I don't see anything that looks like a reliable source with non-trivial coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the original, but give it a serious cleanup. If that doesn't work (and it doesn't seem like anyone has really given it a go), I'll agree to WP:TNT. Adrianrorheim (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC) — Adrianrorheim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Update: I've had a go at cleaning up the intro in line with people's comments here; will do some more edits in a couple of hours. Adrianrorheim (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC) — Adrianrorheim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sorry, but for me this doesn't amount for the kind of rewrite needed. The poker blogs and so forth are just too much. Sticking with my delete !vote. - Brianhe (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been slimmed down to such a degree that it no longer has a promotional feel to it. Have a look and see if anything more needs to be done at this point. Adrianrorheim (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)— Adrianrorheim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete at best for now as the current article is still questionable and I'm not convinced any improvements would make this better thus Delete for now and wait for a better article later. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & continue improvements.--Davidcpearce (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Few or no other edits"(?) Before this sudden rash of deletion proposals from a new editor who has now reverted to a previous username, my immediately preceding edits were on Giulio Regeni, ‎Pál Prónay, Jonas Savimbi, Otto Ohlendorf, Switzerland during the World Wars, Quantum superposition, the Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown... (etc)‎--Davidcpearce (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this note is necessary, but FYI I removed the SPA tag from Davidcpearce, as the account clearly has many other edits. No comment on the subject and other issues going on. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TNT. Wildly out of compliance with our content policies. Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I unstruck a few stricken comments. Jytdog, NeatGrey is about to be cleared of wrongdoing, though it is strongly suggested they brush up on their German and place a note on their old and new user pages acknowledging their connection. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more financial info and removed more promotional-sounding/superfluous text. Would be great if someone could have a look and see if the article is nearing an acceptable standard (Disclosure: I am affiliated with REG's parent organization, EAF, and I'm doing these edits in my spare time.) Adrianrorheim (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP. We are not a webhost for various charities. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2016 (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.