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. A difficult one, but the source seems to meet several automatic notability criteria, as well as arguably meeting GNG anyway. Also widely cited by other reliable sources. (non-admin closure) — Insert CleverPhrase Here 14:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Inside Philanthropy

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

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

To comply with WP:BEFORE I checked for significant coverage in reliable sources to see if the subject of the article meets WP:GNG. While the founder of the organization has authored books, and the mention of the organizations work has been made in numerous reliable sources, very little has been published where the organization it self was the primary subject of the reliable sources. Therefore, appearing to fail WP:ORGCRITE & WP:ORGDEPTH. One can argue that the current article is of stub quality and thus significant coverage does not exist " to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." Now, this may change, and significant coverage may be found to expand or restart the article, to prove that my current findings are wrong (and thus why I am not currently advocating for WP:SALT, and I am human and thus can make mistakes), however, I am creating this AfD cause I am presently of the belief that the subject does not yet meet WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 15:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 15:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 15:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Has plenty of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Meets both WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Softlavender ( talk) 00:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC) reply

WP:ITSNOTABLE.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 20:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC) reply

For instance, let us look at the first news article from a google news search that mentions the subject:

Unlike Earth’s first-richest person Bill Gates, whose charitable foundation has a $39.6 billion endowment and is one of the largest in the world, Bezos and Amazon have not been known for public acts of generosity. A profile of Bezos in Inside Philanthropy described him as a “relatively quiet” philanthropist who “believes in the concept of self-reliance.” In the past, the media has criticized Bezos for his poor philanthropic effort: “There are lemonade stands that donate more to charity than Amazon.com does,” wrote a Slate reporter in 2009.
Since then, the Bezos Family Foundation (run by Bezos’ parents) has granted millions of dollars for education. Jeff Bezos and his wife MacKenzie Bezos have also donated tens of millions dollars toward health, science, and education, according to Inside Philanthropy. He also gave a reported $42 million to fund the Clock of the Long Now, a clock designed to keep time for 10,000 years.

—  Quartz Media

In this Inside Philanthropy was mentioned, but was not the primary subject of the article, and only briefly mentioned. I found this a lot, mention of its work, but very little where there was significant coverage of the subject of this article.

Just cause the organization is cited by notable reliable sources, doesn't necessarily make it notable.

Additionally if the organization's founder is notable, which is debatable, that does not guarantee the organization the founder creates is notable (see WP:NOTINHERITED), it still must stand on its own merits.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 21:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom Rrachet ( talk) 16:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. As its steady citation by other reliable sources shows, this has become a significant source for the charitable sector, and thus passes criteria #3, #4 and #5 of Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals. In any event, a merge/redirect to David Callahan would also be a better result that deletion. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 18:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC) reply

The subject of this AfD is not a newspaper, magazine, or journal; it is a website that has not received significant coverage. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC) reply

It is a journal; the fact that it is online does not change that fact. Softlavender ( talk) 09:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. major resource in its field. It is difficult to use the gng for periodicals or serious website. DGG ( talk ) 14:14, 9 July 2017 (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.