Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Schweitzer Foundation

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Schweitzer Foundation[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article was nominated, if I read it correctly, just after a discussion about its creation--it's one of those "paid by Vipul" articles--but the AfD died for lack of attendance. I suppose that's neither here nor there, but it is also a bad article.

First of all, the secondary sources are just incredibly thin--mere mentions, really, and the aforementioned CBC article on which its notability really rests is a shoddy piece of writing--note the opening sentence, "A German animal rights group says its campaign to ban the sale of lobsters in the country’s supermarkets has been very successful." (It is not even clear whether this is true--it's possible that supermarkets stopped selling live lobsters, but even that is hard to confirm.) It is true, as Eggishorn pointed out in the previous AfD, that it is mentioned in a MeteoWeb.eu article--but as one of four organizations who were engaged in a campaign, and what on earth is MeteoWeb anyway? One finds it cited on Wikipedia, in weather reports. So the coverage is as thin as can be, though it is beefed up some by some spurious references to Albert Schweitzer.

The article itself is still a piece of terrible puff writing, sourced mostly to the organization ("...states that its mission...", that sort of stuff). It claims all kinds of corporate changes have been made due to its activism--sourced to Animal Charity Evaluators, which bases its conclusions on documentation supplied by the organization. So no, I don't doubt the organization exists, but this is all just too thin. There is no (reliable) in-depth discussion of this outfit in secondary sources: not notable by our standards. (Pinging VQuakr, who previously nominated this.) Drmies (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping. The previous discussion was at WP:Articles for deletion/Albert Schweitzer Foundation for Our Contemporaries; I don't immediately see it linked above. VQuakr (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right--that's probably because the article was renamed? Drmies (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment trying to look at this with fresh eyes since it has been a few years. I see there is a de.wiki article on this subject with 27 references; would it be worthwhile to ask someone who is bilingual in German to review those to determine if some can be used to establish significant coverage here? Beyond that, there have been no significant changes to the article since I nominated it for deletion in 2017, so the same deletion rationale would apply. VQuakr (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look through the sources on .de; unfortunately they are not great. Most are either in-house, passing mentions, or write-ups in decidedly partisan online sources. There's two items of local coverage, one dead and one here. And this I suppose counts as an industry newsletter. Nothing else that could sensibly be added to what's already in our article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Based on this, I maintain my opinion of delete due to the lack of WP:SIGCOV. VQuakr (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update--thanks to Black Kite I learned that this article was worth $32. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing the required non-trivial coverage in secondary sources for WP:CORP or WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:40, 21 May 2020 (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.