Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FundRazr

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FundRazr

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

The subject of this article appears to fail to meet the general notability guideline, despite its rather prolific marketing department. I was not able to locate any reliable sources that are intellectually independent of the subject matter, though there are a plethora of spammy pseudo sources similar to those I recently removed from the article (earlier version is here for reference) and lots of Google hits to primary sources. VQuakr (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this hideous piece of WP:SPAM. The only thing missing from this advertisement is their 1-800 number. Qworty (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content provided on this page followed guidelines and exactly the model of countless other companies sharing factual information for the Wikipedia audience. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoFundMe and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiegogo. While I work for FundRazr, all points were referenced with objective external sources. Any brand on Wikipedia was likely started by that brand, let's be realistic. The only internal sources were public pages showing the notable projects mentioned with proof of the amount raised.

The tone of the editor VQuakr does not appear to show any neutrality as opioninated language is used "prolific marketing department" etc. How is removing source references to media sources like "Read, Write, Web" or "TechVibes" the neutral activity of an objective editor. Look at the 2 examples above which follow exactly the same approach, as do thousands of other posts. This raises the question of neutrality and why FundRazr is being singled out - what connections does VQuakr have...Bretzky63 (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the AfD talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - haven't looked anything up other than the user's talk page - and there's a clear conflict of interest here. (Bretzky63 registered as Fundrazrbret originally) Lukeno94 (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to the company's "team" page - I don't think anyone is trying to hide anything. Stalwart111 13:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SPAM...why wasn't this speedy deleted before? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Improve I was able to find three references that were primarily about Fundrazr.[1] [2][3] This supports notability. If the article could be edited based on these article, it might be worth keeping.----Nowa (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a major cleanup of the site. Candid comments and additional edits are welcome.--Nowa (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I appreciate some work has been done to clean this up but the fact remains that it exists purely to WP:PROMO the subject - written by the subject's marketing manager (please see WP:COI) who offers only an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument for keeping this. I'm not excited about the blog reference, but the guy writing it seems reasonably credible. One of the other references really isn't coverage of the subject - it is coverage of an event that the subject's CEO attented. The few lines he snuck in about his company couldn't possibly be considered "significant coverage". The other blogs-for-sources aren't great either but there's one or two reliable sources in there. I'm not so convinced it completely fails WP:CORPDEPTH so badly that I strongly favour deletion. All in all, a great lesson on how not to use Wikipedia for company PR. Stalwart111 13:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I still feel the article is sufficiently cleaned up with appropriate references for notability for a keep.--Nowa (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2012 (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.