Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rhodes Project


 * 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   delete. v/r - TP 15:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Rhodes Project

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable English and Welsh charity, Fails WP:GNG Mt  king  (edits)  09:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm stopping short of delete, because although the coverage in third-party sources is minimal (the only one of any standing is the Huffington Post), the project does seem to operate on a substantial financial scale, providing scholarships to about 1,00 women worldwide. However, the phrase "which aims to advance the public acceptance of the notion of female success" is questionable. As the project's own website doesn't state that as an aim, this is unverified. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have clarified my language in the aforementioned sentence, which reflects work shown on the project's website and blog. I do think, however, that because this is the first study of its kind, and the only one to pay any serious attention to this group of women, who symbolize the accomplishments of second wave feminism on an international scale, the Rhodes Project is notable and deserves an entry. Bootslewis (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Weak Keep Sufficient references and association with notable people kind of make this article pass WP:GNG. IJA (talk) 10:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 07:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insufficiently notable charity. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - insufficient coverage in third-party sources to pass the notability guidelines. Robofish (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2011 (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.