- 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. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
41pounds.org
- 41pounds.org ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:ORG. BEFORE only shows other papers running the AP story shown in the article from SFGate, some other passing mentions in a similar vein and little else. Surprisingly my search turned up no Gnews hits on the BBB negative info. Since the organization is apparently defunct, can't see how this situation could improve. John from Idegon ( talk) 02:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom; the group is now defunct and none of the past coverage suggests notability. Power~enwiki ( talk) 21:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- I took a look at the Highbeam results and it looks to me like 41pounds.org got a fair amount of coverage in independent sources (at least when the organization was intact).
- In terms of WP:ORGDEPTH I think the examples listed in the policy are more trivial than what one sees in the Highbeam results. For example, "the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories,". Well, I think the mention in The Washington Post or the one in the Deseret Morning News are more significant than just a listing in a business directory. So I think it is meeting WP:ORGDEPTH, and also WP:AUD, and WP:ORGIND, so I would say keep (though the downward trajectory of the organization is an added wrinkle).
- In terms of WP:ILLCON I haven't seen anything that says that they are being investigated, were indicted, etc.
- On a practical note I added a mention of two similar organizations to the article -- Catalog Choice and DMAChoice, so that readers looking for such a service would have alternatives. As far as I know there isn't any issues with either of those. I actually signed up with DMAChoice (only cost $2); however, I haven't really sought to use it to reduce the amount of mail that I get. Jjjjjjjjjj ( talk) 09:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- I went and deleted the wikilink to 41pounds.org in the article on The Nature Conservancy in this edit (that's how I found out about the organization in the first place), and so I talked about why I did that on the talk page.
- I took a look at what articles link to 41pounds and made some edits to the article on Advertising mail.
- Incoming links being deleted could argue for deletion, but people might still find the article, and I think the information on alternatives could be helpful. Also, maybe 41pounds will be able to turn itself around. Jjjjjjjjjj ( talk) 11:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - since we can't find out for sure whether they are defunct or not, the organization is not notable. I looked at an earlier version and come out questioning whether they were even a non-profit. They claimed to donate part of their donations to non-profits (does that make sense?). Smallbones( smalltalk) 15:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- no indications of notability or significance; WP:ADVOCACY. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
41pounds.org
- 41pounds.org ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:ORG. BEFORE only shows other papers running the AP story shown in the article from SFGate, some other passing mentions in a similar vein and little else. Surprisingly my search turned up no Gnews hits on the BBB negative info. Since the organization is apparently defunct, can't see how this situation could improve. John from Idegon ( talk) 02:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom; the group is now defunct and none of the past coverage suggests notability. Power~enwiki ( talk) 21:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- I took a look at the Highbeam results and it looks to me like 41pounds.org got a fair amount of coverage in independent sources (at least when the organization was intact).
- In terms of WP:ORGDEPTH I think the examples listed in the policy are more trivial than what one sees in the Highbeam results. For example, "the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories,". Well, I think the mention in The Washington Post or the one in the Deseret Morning News are more significant than just a listing in a business directory. So I think it is meeting WP:ORGDEPTH, and also WP:AUD, and WP:ORGIND, so I would say keep (though the downward trajectory of the organization is an added wrinkle).
- In terms of WP:ILLCON I haven't seen anything that says that they are being investigated, were indicted, etc.
- On a practical note I added a mention of two similar organizations to the article -- Catalog Choice and DMAChoice, so that readers looking for such a service would have alternatives. As far as I know there isn't any issues with either of those. I actually signed up with DMAChoice (only cost $2); however, I haven't really sought to use it to reduce the amount of mail that I get. Jjjjjjjjjj ( talk) 09:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- I went and deleted the wikilink to 41pounds.org in the article on The Nature Conservancy in this edit (that's how I found out about the organization in the first place), and so I talked about why I did that on the talk page.
- I took a look at what articles link to 41pounds and made some edits to the article on Advertising mail.
- Incoming links being deleted could argue for deletion, but people might still find the article, and I think the information on alternatives could be helpful. Also, maybe 41pounds will be able to turn itself around. Jjjjjjjjjj ( talk) 11:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - since we can't find out for sure whether they are defunct or not, the organization is not notable. I looked at an earlier version and come out questioning whether they were even a non-profit. They claimed to donate part of their donations to non-profits (does that make sense?). Smallbones( smalltalk) 15:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- no indications of notability or significance; WP:ADVOCACY. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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.