Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Developmentaid

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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Developmentaid

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

Fails WP:CORP. The sources that work aren't significant coverage, just mentions, and it all smacks of promotionalism. Sources for the most part fail WP:RS. Standard search for sources produced nothing of value. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are quite a few sources. See: [1], [2], [3]. The google search might have not provided many results because of the common name the company has. I think the page meets WP:GNG. User:Kircea1 - User_talk:Kircea1 09:14:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Those are directory type listings, not WP:SIGCOV in any way whatsoever. I found lists like that, they establish that the organization exists, but not that they are notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but for example [4] this is a top 10 of websites with jobs, not just a mere listing. This proves that the organization is notable in its sector of activity. Kircea1 (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - In your mind, perhaps, but not according to WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, which is what we use to determine whether or not it is notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The cited sources are largely unreliable per WP:RS, and consist of trivial listings and brief mentions. I was unable to find any extensive coverage in any other sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH.- Mr X 11:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any RS. This organization is a membership-based jobs/message/info board for NGO's. The only third-party refs are announcements about its jobs services. In terms of categories, it should meet wp:corp, and it does not. LaMona (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2015 (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.