Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charity branding

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:11, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Charity branding

This page contains nothing of note; just an unverifiable statement and a book about charity branding. It should be deleted (unless someone can expand it to include worthwhile, verifiable information). --K. 01:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's trash! Yopohari 08:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 09:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's no harm in keeping it . Needs to be edited though .--IncMan 13:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not noteworthy as an article in and of itself. If the information is critical it should be a subsection in Brand. If this passed VfD the link in Brand should be removed to prevent recreation in the future. Wikibofh 14:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a legitimate subtopic of Brand but could be better written from scratch. –DeweyQ 17:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree DeweyQ. There are definite differences between corporate branding and charity branding, so there should be either an article on it, or a section under Branding. However, the current article is as Megan1967 said, not encyclopaedic. --K. 00:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 09:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There could be an interesting article to be written on the rise of "ethical" brands such as Fairtrade; but this isn't it. Delete. -- Karada 10:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.