Contents

Talk:Raising for Effective Giving

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 April 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Effective Altruism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Effective Altruism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relevant to effective altruism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Effective AltruismWikipedia:WikiProject Effective AltruismTemplate:WikiProject Effective AltruismEffective Altruism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Gambling Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gambling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GamblingWikipedia:WikiProject GamblingTemplate:WikiProject GamblingGambling articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Gambling To-do: edit history watch purge Current collaborations: Improve an article to FA Improve an article to A Help with the Gambling articles needing attention. Tag the talk pages of Gambling-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gambling}} banner. The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated. Japan section reads as though it was written by the gambling industry - quotes of 160% returns are 'citation needed'.

Multiple issues[edit]

The WP:NOTNEWS banner that's currently up on this page mainly refers to issues which were also addressed in the WP:TNT proposal (which was later closed due to lack of consensus). I have a personal connection to the parent organization of this article's subject (please see my userpage for COI statement), hence the WP:COI notice. Since then, I have made several major edits in an effort to reduce the highly promotional tone, as well as overall content length, that characterized this article around the time it was suggested for deletion.

I would appreciate it if other editors could have a look at the article in its current state and decide whether or not it should stay in WP:NOTNEWS and WP:COI. Adrianrorheim (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Since no other users have replied, I have taken down the "multiple issues" and "news release" banners that were no longer relevant. The COI banner is still up. Adrianrorheim (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Update: There has been no discussion on this article's talk page (nor a link to a discussion anywhere else) since the article was up for deletion. The majority of recent edits have been made by users without a conflict of interest. Thus, I am removing this page's COI banner in accordance with the following guideline: "Some neutrality tags such as Conflict of Interest (COI) and Neutral point of view (POV) require that the tagging editor initiate a dialog (generally on the article's talk page), to sustain their placement. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, the template can be removed.". Adrianrorheim (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]