Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GiveHope (2nd nomination)

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.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

GiveHope

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Nominating again for AFD as I see no real coverage in the year since it was last deleted and the article relies largely on passing mentions, or inclusion in stories such as person xyz gets injured/killed, someone sets up a crowdfunding entry which is really just

WP:MILL and not remotely about the subject CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 16:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, I didn't nom as I had posted the previous AFD. Just a modicum of coverage about the company itself would satisfy me, but as it stands seems entirely non-notable, especially as many of the refs are hyperlocal news coverage, e.g. Patch is for neighborhoods, so closer to a blog than a big city paper in terms of standards of what's covered. JesseRafe (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The passing coverage referenced in this instance of the article and found by searches is insufficient to reverse my "delete" opinion from the August 2017 AfD. AllyD (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:as per above Lyndaship (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me if you had replied 20:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me if you had replied 20:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me if you had replied 20:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Doesn't meet
significant coverage from reliable sources. None of the sources cover the website in depth. — Newslinger talk 10:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Added an additional news source that covers the company solely and in depth. - Bastetstatue (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A single hyper-local source is not adequate significant in depth coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calling

i24NEWS 'hyper-local' is a stretch, it's an international news channel. - Bastetstatue (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete: does not meet
WP:TOOSOON (or never) per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass either
WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:06, 3 August 2018 (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.