This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 March 4.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. I took account of the improved sourcing Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MassiveGood[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article is about a project with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Searches only turn up press releases and marketing write-ups. TN X Man 17:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I applaud their goal of raising money to fight HIV and AIDS, they don't seem to be notable and the article is just advertising for them. TJ Spyke 18:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable subject. --DAJF (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added coverage from reliable sources. - Eastmain (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources added by User: Eastmain.--Pink Bull 05:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia should not have an article about this until it actually comes into operation -- we should not be in the position of providing prospective publicity for things. Looie496 (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the bar is always set higher for things that don't yet exist or aren't yet in operation, and at the moment this just doesn't pass. Maybe someday. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are reliable sources that discuss the new initiative because it is an remarkable idea. While it is possible that the initiave may not be sucessful, the concept is notable and will be of interest whether it is short lived idea that never reaches its potential or a long term success. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 17:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately for the last keep, this is not a novel idea. What we have here is forecasting. --Bejnar (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MassiveGood is a very real thing. It is already active and collecting funds, though the major part of the program launches at the end of January 2010: http://www.millennium-foundation.org/news/business-travel-connexion-clicks-massivegood. Also, a new book called "Power in Numbers" has been written about it: http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/publicaffairsbooks-cgi-bin/display?book=9781586488932&cover=pb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.119.13 (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC) — 12.130.119.13 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep The sources used are reliable and the project itself is real and concrete. While the project has not been launched yet,it is in the process of creation which does not make it imaginary. Furthermore, the organizations involved are noteworthy.Tomo64 (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC) — Tomo64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete or Merge to Unitaid#Activities_.26_Achievements. The topic sort of meets WP:V and WP:FUTURE as there are press releases which state that it will be starting up. However, in order to assist the organisation and navigability of Wikipedia for readers and editors, we have evolved minimal notability requirements. This topic, which does not yet exist, and which is part administered by a non-notable organisation, does not meet the appropriate notability requirements - WP:ORG. It is also worth pointing out that press releases are not to be used as sources for an article. There is less information available in this article than is accessible from the press release, so it is difficult to conceive of the benefits to the general reader of us having such an article. At best, this can be merged into Unitaid. SilkTork *^YES! 14:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the ~~organization~~ initiative has not started, yet. While they are not fully operational now, they do exist. The notability standards are intended to weed out the ~~organizations~~ things that do not have significant mentions in major references. This one definitely does. The reason that the organization is being covered in the media in reliable sources now is because of the involved parent organizations, the cause, and unique nature of the work it will do. I can only definitively speak for myself, but I was interested in reading about the organization and I think that other people will be, too. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 14:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flo. MassiveGood is not an organisation, it is a fundraising project by the Millennium Foundation. I cited WP:ORG as the nearest appropriate guideline, however, WP:EVENT appears to have gained consensus as a guideline, and that is a more appropriate guideline to consult. A considered reading of that guideline reveals that the wider consensus of the community is that articles such as this one are thought to be indiscriminate pieces of information. SilkTork *^YES! 15:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used the word "initiative" in my initial remarks and that would have been a better choice of words here, too. But taking the discussion in that direction of discussing there exact structure causes the problem of "not being able to see the forest for the trees". We know that there are significant mentions in reliable sources so we can get information from them. We don't need complex alternative methods to determine notability since we can rely on the basic way of doing it. :-) FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 13:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. As you can see from my user name, I'm working for the Millennium Foundation so I'm one of the people behind MASSIVEGOOD. It's good to see such a lively discussion, it helped us understand a lot about Wikipedia and its philosophy. Although we are not the most objective people on this matter, we truly believe that MASSIVEGOOD will become very important, it actually already is in the field of global health, and deserves to be on Wikipedia. MASSIVEGOOD is in operation, it was launched in September 2009, it is already raising money but it will only be available to the general public from the end of this month. That is why we think MASSIVEGOOD qualify to appear on Wikipedia but we would like it to fully follow the rules established by the community. We were thinking about editing the page, only talking about the official launch of MASSIVEGOOD at the UN back in September (where we had press coverage from the NYT, Time... and I’m not talking about press releases ;-)) with a few words about what MASSIVEGOOD is all about and when it is due to be launched. Obviously, as non-experts, we would highly appreciate your input on this. Thanks again for your help guys! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Millenniumfoundation (talk • contribs) 18:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let us know when you are in the top twenty fund raisers. --Bejnar (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added three new references from the New York Times, Time and The Economist. It should answer to the notability issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Millenniumfoundation (talk • contribs) 09:55, 8 January 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.