Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/@HopeMob

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. Article has been developed since nomination, and new sources found. There is ongoing discussion about the merits of some of the sources, though several users have indicated various reliable sources do write significantly about @HopeMob even though some of these sources, and the information they contain, have not yet been incorporated into the article. SilkTork (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HopeMob

@HopeMob (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)

WP should be selective, it is not

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The article is written like advertising copy, but I think that this is fixable. Potentially consider redirecting the article to Shaun King if the decision is made that it is not notable enough to merit a standalone article. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's clearly
  this is an nonredeemable mess, but your opinion may differ. A redirect to its founder would not be helpful, since our readers would not know to use the at sign first to search for it. Bearian (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC) P.S. My stance is not a dis on the worthiness of the cause. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Bearian - That's a good point. Wouldn't anyone who was looking for this organization already know its name? It doesn't seem notable enough to be a standalone article but it does seem relevant to Shaun King, and indeed it is mentioned in his page under the section internet campaigns In 2012, King and web designer Chad Kellough founded HopeMob.org,[27] a charity site that used voting to select a particular person's story and then raise money for that story until its goal was met. The money went to an organization which provided for the person's needs, not to the person individually. After one goal was met, the next story in line would then get funds raised.[28] HopeMob initially raised funds to build their platform in January 2012 on the crowdfunding site Kickstarter. Their campaign raised about $125,000.[29]. Maybe a redirect is a bad option, but I think anyone searching for information on this project would benefit from reading the Shaun King page if this one is deleted. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a redirect would be acceptable. Bearian (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I went through and reworked most of the article to remove the most egregious promotional content. I didn't do a check to see if the organization is notable, but the article has been substantially edited (mostly through removal of junk content).Hog Farm (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I did find some good RS. See:

1. Bennett, Lucy ; Chin, Bertha ; Jones, Bethan ; Bennett, Lucy (Editor) ; Chin, Bertha (Editor) ; Jones, Bethan (Editor) (February 2015). Crowdfunding: A New Media & Society special issue. Vol. 17(2). p. 141-148. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help); |work= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (peer reviewed)
2. Moulton, Cyrus (February 8, 2017). Black activist bemoans 'dip' in humanity. p. A.3. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

Hope this helps.4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment First of all, 4meter4's sources are terrible (sorry!). Crowdfunding: A New Media & Society article at [1] has just this: "What are the benefits and disadvantages of using crowdfunding platforms such as HopeMob" and Telegram source at [2] is "and co-founded the crowdfunding platform @HopeMob, which is dedicated to giving resources to leaders and communities of color". However, I found a lot of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources like [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], with some bits at [10] [11] [12]. There is even a coverage in a book [13]. Meets
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The Huffpost, Forbes, The Social Church (Wise), and The Daily Beast citations are good ... not totally flattering though, but that's what we want, right? I would change my !vote if those four references were added, with text of course, to the article, per

WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Enough good refs have been added to demonstrate significant, reliable coverage. The article still needs work, but enough here to work with. Hog Farm (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/meet-the-hopemob_b_1265288 From a contributing writer and it looks like a testimonial.

https://techcrunch.com/2012/07/26/finding-inspiration-in-the-aurora-tragedy-by-helping-victims-through-hopemob/ This one is from a contributing writer.

The sources aren't as strong as they could be given that it's a company/organization/startup type page which is a category that is prone to promotional :articles. Graywalls (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the list at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. It is possible for sources to be very detailed and long but possible for them to have very little effect in the establishment of notability. There are contributors who almost specialize in writing a long winded pieces about rather obscure companies too. The Perennial Sources page says "TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for purpose of determining notability." regarging TechCrunch. Regarding Huffpost it says "HuffPost's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher." Graywalls (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Non-trivial coverage in reliable sources: [14] (Fast Company), [15] (The Christian Post), [16] (Mashable), among many others. I can list more, but three articles about the subject from sources reliable enough to have their own Wikipedia article is more than enough to establish notability, as long as they are not press releases being copied or user-generated content on the sites in question, neither of which appears to be an issue with the above three sources. Samboy (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2019 (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.