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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charitybuzz[edit]

Charitybuzz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Promotional. I don't think it's fixable, but if someone wants to try, that's OK with me. The problem is that the key feature of the site seems to be the opportunity for namedropping DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I thought I would be weighing in with a Keep, because I'm familiar with Charitybuzz and their work. However, the references used (with the exception of the Entreprenuer article) are from questionable sources or don't provide extensive coverage. Still, I did an edit on the article to remove the promotional tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSFarman (talk • contribs) 20:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - Subject is notable and covered in reliable sources but the page needs to be trimmed significantly as DGG noted, the name dropping should be removed. Meatsgains (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If you search for news (separate Google option) about this organization you'll find hundreds of articles. The same old mantra fits here that just because the article is badly written doesn't mean the subject matter isn't worth an article. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:48, 12 February 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.