Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Folly Wildlife Rescue Trust

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2013 February 28.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 USERFY. I am moving the page to Nunnsofunky's userspace. I also want to applaud the participants of this discussion for their civility and helpfulness towards a new comer and Nunnsofunky's good natured attitude towards understanding our processes. J04n(talk page) 10:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Folly Wildlife Rescue Trust

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

Recommend deletion due to lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. None of the citations offered actually provide information about the organization, but rather offer brief comments by representatives of the organization about various wild animals. We need to have significant coverage about the organization in order to establish notability. Cindy(talk to me) 21:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. I was asked to come in and look for sources, but unfortunately there just aren't any out there that focus on the organization. I found brief, trivial mentions of it in relation to other things, but nothing that would count as in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Since the original article creator looks to be completely willing to continue working on it, I think it would be better to move this into their userspace. (WP:USERFY) There is a COI here, but nothing that I'd be terribly worried about at this point in time. They've shown that they're willing to learn and work with others, so I think this is a good faith type situation. I would recommend that they get someone from a WikiProject such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights or Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals to help them look for sources and work on the article until it passes notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your help and advice, Tokyogirl179. Would something like this be acceptable as a source? - http://www.indexmagazine.co.uk/article.php?id=532 - It is a local press article from 2012 and gives an overview of the Trust, where it came from, where it is now and what it does. Similarly, this one from the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/southeast/series11/week1_hedgehogs.shtml Thank you.
  - I've also been looking at other charity sites for ideas and I can't really see how their references are so much different to that of the Folly article. Nunnsofunky (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - If I may butt in - it depends what you hope to source with it, but IMHO, it seems like a passable reference to use. I'd suggest you go ahead and do it, and see what other editors say about it. Be careful when comparing to other articles' sources, keeping in mind that the sources will come under extra scrutiny during an Afd process. It is acceptable to reference self published sources in certain circumstances (see WP:SELFPUB), but what needs to be demonstrated here is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cheers. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hi AdventurousSquirrel. Thanks for the advice. I have removed my reference to the other charity - I didn't give any thought to their also being put under scrutiny. :( I have added the BBC News and Index Magazine references to the Folly article, so we'll see if these pass the test. Who ultimately decides on whether an article is deleted or not, though? If some editors say "delete" and others say "don't", who then has the final say? Thanks! Nunnsofunky (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd like to delete the articles for deletion status box for this topic. A-I do not know how. B-I'm not sure if I should do that at this point.C-This is a great topic/page in my opinion with photos worthy of "photo of the week", so I definitely think this one is a "keeper"24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        To respond to you both: an explanation of the AfD process can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Under normal circumstances, an administrator will close the discussion once consensus has been reached by editors contributing to the discussion using Wikipedia policy-based arguments, (and/or common sense). AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone who has offered help, support and advice. I have extended the article, added an info box and further references, plus included some photographs. I hope this goes some way to helping it qualify as a permanent entry in Wikipedia. Nunnsofunky (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to significant improvements to the article in the past week. I hope the new editor will go on to write on many topics here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Once I've got the hang of this, I'll definitely write some more articles. :) Nunnsofunky (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to expansion of the article and the inclusion of what I believe to be suitable references proving notability, added since this AfD was raised. Nunnsofunky (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has been re-listed, and the article has expanded significantly in my opinion, I'm going to ask "Keep"-again but for a different reason this time. My first reason had to do with the work of the Trust, which is interesting.Now that the article has expanded, I can see more uses for the article including some historical interest for the area, and geographical/location interest as well.24.0.133.234 (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It matters little toward notability that improvements and/or expansion has been made, or additional content has been added to this article. Notability for organizations must be established in accordance with the guidelines at WP:ORG or WP:GNG. At this point, very little information has been offered that equates to significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Sources provided are limited to local coverage (see WP:LOCAL). While evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. There's nothing to indicate how the organization is significant. At this point, we have a noble cause to rescue and rehabilitate animals by an organization that presents an educational program in local schools and community groups, while also participating in a local Christmas fair. We also have a couple of notable patrons, including an assertion of a financial donation made by Paul McCartney. Wikipedia is not here to promote the existence of an organization or tell the world about an organization's noble cause. Nothing much more is offered here. Sources offered are primarily local coverage, brief mentions, coverage and/or announcements about the organization by affiliated orgs and associates, primary sources, a blog, and numerous articles (sources) about endangered animals served by the organization. The best we have is a public interest article in a local magazine and a local public interest piece in the BBC (see WP:LOCAL). The depth of coverage about this organization simply is not there. An actual review of the sources reveals that the depth of coverage about this organization is minimal and in accordance with WP:ORG, notability has not yet been established (see WP:ORGDEPTH). It may be best to userfy this article, in order to provide the article's creator with the opportunity to continue working on this article until such time as notability may be established in accordance with the guidelines. Cindy(talk to me) 21:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy also agree with userfy at the momement. Almost all the sources appear to be local news coverage, akin to what my local newspaper would do for our local animal shelter. Not notable beyond my immediate area, so not worthy for inclusion. — raeky t 13:48, 20 February 2013 (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.