Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeRice

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 keep. RFerreira (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FreeRice

Nom - this website has been operating just over a month. It has only two reliable sources. And so far, it has donated ZERO rice to anyone. It's a spiffy idea that hasn't taken off, probably won't succeed, hasn't accomplished anything, and likely won't be remembered six months from now. If it is, then we should write an article. Rklawton (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 19:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wasn't this site a new kind of web site, Web 2.0 and socially conscious. Its very young, and its notability is only established through its works. I think instead of deleting now, and if it is notable in six months, we recreate, we should leave for now, and delete in six months, if its not become a cultural reference. scope_creep (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how notability works. Our standard is notability first and then an article. Rklawton (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aren't we not allowed to post about websites even? Where have you found out that it hasn't donated anything yet? You sound like you're making an accusation. Landhermie (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 45 Google News results, so far. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 20:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources provided seem to establish (some) notability. My research pulls some of the same sources, so I know that they at least appear to be legitimate. Does the nom have sources that contradict the claims of the article? Even if the project is not successful, or is not yet successful, it has still received enough independent coverage to satisfy notability. If further research shows the subject to be WP:BOLLOCKS, then I'll happily advocate deletion. I don't see any evidence of that at this time, though. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - My nomination is based on the idea that this is a new website (less than two months old), it hasn't demonstrated that it can or will last, and that the website's flaws will likely cause it to fail. In short, we aren't a crystal ball, and we have no way of knowing if this project will succeed (or fail) in any notable form. Just because something can be reliably sourced, doesn't mean it's sufficiently notable for an article. Rklawton (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I'm not an expert on Notability rules, but a quick check shows that Google News has had articles rb cy for almost a month now. When does something switch from "Temporary" to "Long Term", or is it mostly subjective? Tergadare (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - it's subjective, and that's what this RfD will sort out. Rklawton (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - From following the ghits I would say it clearly meets both the general notability criteria in WP:N and one (the first one) of the alternative specific criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (web). Springnuts (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 48 entries on Google News, including several respectable news sources. I'd say it meets WP:N. Tergadare (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once notable, always notable. Zagalejo^^^ 01:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it has donated ZERO rice to anyone. is a {{fact}}...probably won't succeed, hasn't accomplished anything, and likely won't be remembered six months from now are personal views... Even if it's a failure, it should be removed only after it loses it's notability...

Mugunth ^{(ping me!!!, contribs)} 12:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and see how things progress. RMHED (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FreeRice is helping save the world. This article helps spread the word. Keep it. --69.110.37.4 (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, as per referenced articles. The Raven (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - we cannot allow human aid to succeed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.95.138 (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes Snopes says it's legit.

Landhermie (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Everything as said per nom. It has not even donated any rice, and has not been in operation for barely a month. Rishiboy (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice idea, fun website... I learned some new words, but it isn't notable enough to keep. :( Jmlk 1 7 06:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been sponsored by some big corporations - doesn't that mean it's notable enough? Chinhnt2k3 —Preceding comment was added at 07:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per Wikipedia:Notability_(web), this article meets the first criterion regarding notability which is sufficient for it to be kept. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. It's clearly notable, but whether they actually donate any rice remains to be seen. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 22:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is clearly notable. I saw a link on the bbc's news website a few days ago talking about it. Its new but I think its notable. They haven't donated any rice to anyone yet but they will eventually (or at least they plan on it). If they end up not donating rice then it should go into the article. --BenWhitey (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the website is definitely notable and has been mentioned in many news publications, which are found in the article's citations. –Dream out loud (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's a great website. The whole idea of letting you expand your vocabulary while helping children in need is a great idea. Unfortunately the site (apparently) hasn't donated any rice yet, but I still think the article should stay. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is an interesting website that, if this really works, may be an iconic milestone for charities work. I do not buy the reasoning for deleting if this website does not work or turn out not donating it, instead I think we MUST keep it if it turns out to be a scam. A permanant record on wikipedia as a scam is a big enough reg flag to avoid web users to fall into similar traps in future —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lok2 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please it should not matter how new the website is what matters is that it is important for us to cover yuckfoo (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and close discussion it, as per above, and i think that there are enough sources to verify it as an article, plus the article is very rich in detail for a new site, its of good quality - Legolost (Not Signed in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.146.252 (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above Mikeeilbache r 20:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- if the articles in the press are correct, and I must assume for the time being they are. Greswik (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the coolest new sites on the web. Does Wikipedia really have a policy not to allow websites in its entries?? If so, it should be changed. An encyclopedia is about human knowledge, and notable projects increasingly come from web sites. I think a project like Wikipedia should cherish and support innovation and projects that should be part of everybody's knowledge. I think notable is not only defined by - "how old is the baby and who has written about it," but also - how valuable is the concept? Is this something people would benefit knowing about?

With Freerice.com, the answer is a resounding yes. Only concern I have is that right now the fulfillment of the promise solely hangs on John Breen's promise, there is no check system in place. John Breen's project is not incorporated as a 501(c)3, but that shouldn't be held against him (yet) since this is a slightly evolved process. Let's watch it. Even if people "only" build their vocabulary and get the idea of sending help to those who need it, that is enough gain to leave it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.66.227 (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2007 (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.