Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taproot Foundation

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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taproot Foundation

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

I can find no reliable thrird party sources reporting on this organization. Lots of news hits but the are mostly press releases. The few actual news hits are reporting on people who happen to be members of the group not the group itself. Ridernyc (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a few passing mentions as Ridernyc states, also some press releases. Insufficient to establish notability. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current entry is VERY weak, but organization operates in 6 cities nationally with third party references from time magazine, forbes, msnbc, fast company, new york times, chronicle of philanthropy, etc. organization's "pro bono action tank" and president aaron hurst also reported on by many third party sources Rebecca273747 (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you will have no problem at all providing us with these independent references that discuss the organization not it's members. Ridernyc (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a few references/websites (and i got rid of a few sentences that were very biased/ unsubstantiated)- do you think this is more on track? i can go in and add more references, but I dont have much experience editing wikipedia articles (or dealing with the wikipedia etiquette) and (full disclosure) I know some of Taproot's New York staff so I didnt want to make any big changes/overstep my bounds. I tired to make it more objective/supported than it was before. thoughts/input? are the types of websites and references I added appropriate/moving in the right direction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebecca273747 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry! not used to the coding for signing either!Rebecca273747 (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the time article and found no mention of Taproot, and the other sources seem to be from somewhat questionable sources. Seems this organization is spending a lot of money on PR. Ridernyc (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2010 (UT

They're in the times article but its not a great reference- swapped it out for references from forbes, ny times, and onphilanthropy which i think are a bit stronger- maybe that's helpful? Rebecca273747 (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes article is a passing mention while discussing another person. We need substantial coverage of the organization in reliable sources. Would love to see this non-profits reports and see how much they spend on PR. Ridernyc (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Forbes article is substantial; it's actually about the organization. And Ridernyc, if you want to see how the organization spends its money, just click on the Charity Navigator link, right there in the references. The mere fact that it is rated by Charity Navigator suggests that it is significant. --MelanieN (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2010 (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.