Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DonorDirect

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 - Nabla (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DonorDirect[edit]

This was originally prodded, but the author removed it. This article has no sources to show notability. We have a few links to directory–style listings, but nothing of substance. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added in sources of partnerships with multiple organizations including microsoft. I believe microsoft has notablility and to be a partner takes notability. DonorDirect will also be speaking at Microsoft's World conference. This might not be extremely interesting to you but it does have notablility and sources to verify. Btrain3 (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per general lack of sources. Notability isn't inherited. Stifle (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At this time, the article does not appear to meet Notability. (EhJJ)^TALK 18:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is a general lack of sources? I have provided plenty. Please go to the Blackbaud page. It is a similar company whose only sources are from its own website. Yet it is still up. And if you click on random article, you will continually come up with articles that are much less notable than this one. Btrain3 (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have a very good essay about OTHERSTUFF as it is not a valid objection (and, in fact, you are welcome to put Blackbaud up for AfD.) The problem with the references is that they are all advertisements. While they may provide Verifiability, they do not help in establishing Notability per the above mentioned criteria. (EhJJ)^TALK 19:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references you have provided are not reliable sources. Please feel free to list other articles for deletion if they do not meet the requirements. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2008 (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.