Contested deletion edit
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because...
(Hi, I am currently in the process of creating the iCrowdFund stub. The page is being deleted before I have a chance to complete the edits. Please advise, Poshpaddy ) --Poshpaddy (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Contested deletion edit
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because: there are a few sources, so it's worth giving it time to develop. --Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Merge/redirect edit
The subject of this article would appear to be part of the platform which is already covered in the iDonate (Ireland) article. WP:PRODUCT guidelines would seem to suggest that products (in this case different "parts" of a web platform) wouldn't require their own standalone article. (A similar article on an App interface of the platform was deleted for similar reasons). It isn't clear why we need separate articles on the App, website and other components or offerings of the same company platform. If the company or solution platform is notable, then it can be covered in the primary "company" article. There is a specific guideline on this which suggests as below, so if there are no other opinions, I will likely do this soon:
- If a non-notable product or service has its own article, be bold and merge the article into an article with a broader scope such as the company's article
Are there other thoughts? Guliolopez (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Disagree - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poshpaddy (talk • contribs) 18:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Hi, iDonate / iFundraise and the Tendo App are online donation services that complement one another. Crowdfunding is totally different to online donations. The iCrowdfund website is not part of the iDonate platform. It is totally standalone. iCrowdfund is similar to Kickstarter and Indegogo, which are all project based. A better solution would be to edit iCrowdfund out of the iDonate page, which should have been done when the iCrowdfund page was created. iCrowdFund is notable in its own right in that it is one of the few crowfunding services worldwide that offers both 'All or Nothing' and 'Keep it All'. Crowdfunding should not be confused with online donations. Poshpaddy (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- OK Poshpaddy. I will remove the merge tag. However, it is a little (frankly) frustrating that, when it suited purposes, these were listed as closely related and complimentary offerings from your company. Now that it no longer suits purposes, they are suddenly "totally different". I'm sure you can appreciate how this type of thing might be a little frustrating to editors with less of a close-association to the topic. Guliolopez (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- the website iCrowdfund.ie now redirects to iFundraise.ie, so I think this should be merged as mentioned above. I am putting iCrowdFund down as defunct in the Comparison_of_crowdfunding_services article pending a new article being created Brinerustle (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- If the "real world" entities have now been merged, then absolutely it is a no-brainer that these two articles be merged. (As was originally proposed). Guliolopez (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Done And Closed. Per discussion. Per WP:PRODUCT. And to reflect reality.Guliolopez (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- If the "real world" entities have now been merged, then absolutely it is a no-brainer that these two articles be merged. (As was originally proposed). Guliolopez (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- the website iCrowdfund.ie now redirects to iFundraise.ie, so I think this should be merged as mentioned above. I am putting iCrowdFund down as defunct in the Comparison_of_crowdfunding_services article pending a new article being created Brinerustle (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- OK Poshpaddy. I will remove the merge tag. However, it is a little (frankly) frustrating that, when it suited purposes, these were listed as closely related and complimentary offerings from your company. Now that it no longer suits purposes, they are suddenly "totally different". I'm sure you can appreciate how this type of thing might be a little frustrating to editors with less of a close-association to the topic. Guliolopez (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
