Talk:Charitybuzz

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 February 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Charitybuzz article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 27 June 2012 by reviewer Mdann52 (talk · contribs).

Personal opinion of User 2a02:6d40:30cb:2f01:5e8:2a84:2ab2:60b3 moved from Article to Talk

How can it be that Wikipedia allows this advertisement for Charitybuzz to go unchecked?

Following wave after wave of this glorious advertisement, the Wikipedia reader only learns at the end of the article of 'Charity'-buzz's very-much-for-profit business model which takes a hefty 20% fee from the proceeds of EACH and EVERY auction, pumping it straight into the coffers of this commercial business. Bidders are also left completely unaware that a good number of the 'charities' are foundations controlled by the donor themselves. Bidders are also left without any information concerning administrative costs of any of the entities which receive the remainder of the winning bids.

There's also a huge gap in not providing information related to published news regarding the company. Nothing about the May 2013 incident when an internship for the UN was posted, leading to questions of 'meritocracy for sale'. Nothing of the Jan 2012 article on Fox News describing how sometimes it's the donors themselves--as managers of their own foundations--who receive the remaining proceeds from certain auctions.

This is no accusation of any criminal activity whatsoever. Charitybuzz has legally found a way to scrap the cream off the top when it comes to internet users buying memorabilia or experiences. It's the Corporate American way. But, to Wikipedia: please prevent individual companies from damaging what should be an encyclopedic offering of information on this platform.

--TMill91 (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia entry is little more than an advertisement

Next time this article is up for review, I recommend deletion. It's little more than an advertisement for a profit-based company.

128.0.100.109 (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of auctions

We really don't need this extensive list of auctions. Surely a handful of really notable ones, in prose-form would be sufficient. This is not an ad for Charitybuzz. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]