Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Toremet

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. joe decker ^talk 00:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UK Toremet

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

Unremarkable organisation, no independent sources except short mentions in a few fundraising ads in niche magazines. Google returns 163 search results with only a single substantial third-party source that, conversely, issues a warning about this company [1] (doubtful impartiality of the source aside). The number of hits is anyway incredibly low for an online fundraising service that makes claims to

WP:PROMO — kashmiri ^TALK 16:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This organisation is active and partners with many, many orgs and appears on their website as their tool to give to them via UK donors. They are a partner on the Jewish Charity Guide and of "Israel Gives" in the UK. Happy138 (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (comment) 12:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while laudable, and Happy138's comments are appreciated, they are not backed up with sources, so it doesn't pass
WP:NORG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 5 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.