Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garden State Initiative

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. RL0919 (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Garden State Initiative

Garden State Initiative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I see this as essentially advocacy forthe organization's ideas, rather than a NPOV article. If we removed the advocacy , there wouldn't be enough material to show notability DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article meets all the criteria for stand-alone Wikipedia articles about organizations. And it meets all the actual Wikipedia criteria for NPOV. And here is proof (Talk page: "How this article meets all the Wikipedia criteria for standalone organization articles") that this article meets (exceeds, actually) all the criteria I just mentioned. Thanks -Francisco Fredeye (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete and Redirect to
  WP:ORG. The article further would need major edits, given that it reads like an extension of the official site. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• reply to the "weak delete" - Per
  WP:ORG: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This article satisfies that requirement. How it "reads" is not part of the notability requirement. Not at all. That's my input. Thanks. --Francisco Fredeye (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep appears to meet GNG; (an article about think tank should include its ideas/conclusions, too).Djflem (talk) 08:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete and Redirect per Rhododendrites. Ultimately fails
  WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2019 (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.