Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Wildlife Outreach

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. A clear consensus following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Western Wildlife Outreach

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

Contested PROD. I stand by my concern that there is "No in-depth coverage as is required to meet WP:ORG". SmartSE (talk) 07:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another run of the mill organization. Does not assert notability (WP:ORG). Donnie Park (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable animal preservation organisation, have marked nearly half the references as dead links ,some of them are reliable source press coverage, hopefully the bot will fix them, article passes WP:GNG. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: Can you link to the sources that provide substantial coverage of the organisation? I'm only able to find brief mentions that don't suffice for establishing notability. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find much, am waiting for the bot to recover the dead links ( can you check they are tagged right) before deciding whether to change vote, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: There's no bot that rescues dead links unfortunately and in this instance the internet archive didn't crawl a copy either. It's clear from the URLs though that they are both local newspapers which aren't useful for notability and probable that the subject is not this organisation. SmartSE (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

have struck keep vote due to lack of indepth RS. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks in depth coverage in reliable sources that confirm notability. Meatsgains (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I unfortunately found nothing better convincing and the article is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This PBS episode seems to be the only potential WP:RS. If someone has time to watch it to see if it provides significant coverage, that'd be nice. But assuming it doesn't, seems to fail WP:GNG Empamazing (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient non-trivial coverage for WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:02, 21 April 2016 (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.