Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RISE Project (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 23:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

RISE Project
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Neither of these two entities shows evidence of passing WP:ORG. Let's look at the sources to see why, although you'll forgive me if I don't bother analyzing links from riseproject.ro or rise.md. For RISE Project, we have:


 * YouTube video
 * No mention of RISE, no mention, no mention, no mention, no mention, no mention, no mention, no mention, no mention, no mention, no mention
 * Passing mention in a non-independent source, passing mention in a non-independent source
 * Passing mention, passing mention, passing mention
 * Article by RISE, Article by RISE

For RISE Moldova, there's this:


 * Some video
 * No mention, no mention, no mention, no mention
 * Press release, press release, press release, press release, press release, press release
 * Passing mention, passing mention, passing mention
 * Directory entry in a non-independent source, Directory entry in a non-independent source, mirror of RISE's site

I think the level of coverage pretty much speaks for itself. Biruitorul Talk 23:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page:


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - same as before as WP:GNG. I randomly picked one of the non-RISE refs. It turned out to be a great deal more than a passing mention. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just as in the previous AfD, VMS Mosaic, you've mentioned references that establish notability, but failed to provide any specific examples of such. In the interests of ensuring a thorough discussion, would you care to do that this time around? To which "randomly picked.... non-RISE ref" do you refer?
 * And let it also be noted that this user pretty much always votes to keep; while it's certainly his right to do so, one does wonder about his impartiality. His last delete vote came nine months ago&mdash;ironically, that article was kept. - Biruitorul Talk 14:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I normally only !vote on articles which should be kept. There are more than enough other !voters for articles which should be deleted (a 60+% success rate). Of my 276 keep votes, only 25 have been deleted plus 13 merge/redirect. That is a high rate of being on the correct side. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it elsewhere. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All right, VMS Mosaic, let's try again. Just as in the previous AfD, you've mentioned references that establish notability, but failed to provide any specific examples of such. In the interests of ensuring a thorough discussion, would you care to do that this time around? To which "randomly picked.... non-RISE ref" do you refer? - Biruitorul Talk 02:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - Esquivalience t 02:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC) VMS Mosaic (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon  00:16, 23 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.