Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riverzedge

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Riverzedge

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG and written as per WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Here's what I found: Rhode Island Monthly feature, Providence Monthly feature, Woonsocket Call, bits in Providence Journal here, here, and here, RI Historical Society, GoLocalWorcester, GoLocalProv (admittedly I don't know how reliable these GoLocal sites are -- they look like they're not UGC at least), Providence Business News (rather routine)... and haven't gone through all of the search results yet. Coverage spans years, but it would be good to find more coverage elsewhere (beyond the RI area). It does look like North Carolina State University's Philanthropy Journal tracks their activities, but that's just bits of news. Seems on the edge, but I'll fall on the weak keep side. Any sort of promotional language can be taken care of with editing; it's not in WP:TNT territory. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think my justifying Riverzedge's notablity (i.e. that in addition winning big national grants they have been studied as a model for national organizations, qualifying them WP NONPROFIT "Factors that have attracted widespread attention") sounds a little promotional, but could be tweaked to sound less glowing, say removing stats? JKHumanities|✉ 01:40, 7 March 2020 (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.