Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonfly Forest

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 keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonfly Forest

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

This article is about a not-for-profit organisation which does not meet the inclusions guidelines for general notability or organisations. The activities appear to be local in scope and there is no significant coverage about them in reliable sources. The only mention I could find was this local story. Whpq (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 16:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is also written in an advertising/press release tone that's quite likely to have been prepared by the organization itself and therefore to also violate WP:COI. Which, of course, isn't a deletion reason in and of itself if there are valid sources out there to salvage the article with — but per Wphq that doesn't seem to be the case here. Ergo, delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the article is in fact a copy of material from the organisation's web site licensed as CC-by-SA and GFDL which is why the material is promotional. -- Whpq (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that is not necessarily the case. Usually, to be sure, even if you give the subject gives permission properly, the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable. But sometimes it's just necessary to remove a little. And a really well-done " about us" can be NPOV and informative enough for the encyclopedia. Now , in this case quite a lot would need to be removed, so

Weak keep -- there is at least [1] -- assuming much of the content is rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Keep. I added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I see at least enough coverage to border on notability, although the article needs a serious rewrite in order to convey a neutral point of view. Transmissionelement (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Thanks for adding some references. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:38, 4 November 2009 (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.