Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bikes to Rwanda


 * 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. Nakon 03:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Bikes to Rwanda

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sounds like a worthy organisation, so I hope someone proves me wrong. I could see some coverage, but not enough for WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Tagged for lack of WP:NOTABILITY by 7 years ago, no one else has yet established its notability. Hopefully this can be resolved now. Boleyn (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep – There was some recent information in this book. It looks like the organization has fizzled out. I don't really know what to do with this. The links in the article were all dead, so I fixed the ones I could. If we keep it, it would be on the basis of the two surviving links from the article and the one from the book, which explains the difficulties they were up against. Starting with being the most expensive country in the world to ship anything to. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yes, it was a mess, but please check the current article. Valid, verifiable references now include VeloNews, The New York Times, and Entrepreneur magazine. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to Stumptown Coffee Roasters: Most of the sources in the articles only give Bikes to Rwanda a trivial mention. The only ones that cover the organization in any substantial detail are the book and Triple Pundit source. I'd recommend a merge to the listed section, which covers the organization is sufficient detail. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.