Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-Biodiversity Conservationist In Uganda (PROBICOU)

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 merge to Conservation in Uganda. I think there is consensus here that the stand-alone article should not exist in its current form, and that the preferred remedy is a selective merge into Conservation in Uganda. I recommend continuing a discussion at Talk:Conservation in Uganda regarding exactly which content to include. Waggers TALK 09:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Biodiversity Conservationist In Uganda (PROBICOU)

[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)

Sadly I'm not seeing enough independent coverage for WP:NORG, or even plain-old GNG. Current sourcing is clearly not independent. Couldn't find anything on JSTOR. The one source I could find is [1], which is borderline on depth of coverage of the company directly, but looks independent. Ovinus (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Ovinus (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep with source [2] Still needs one more to satisfy WP:CLUB VTVL (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source provided by VTVL relies entirely on interviews of organization's personnel. As noted in WP:NORG "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject." I don't think the source qualifies, so delete (t · c) buidhe 23:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If kept, this MUST be renamed Pro-Biodiversity Conservationists in Uganda. gidonb (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Initially, I noted that if kept, the name should be changed. That said, looking for potential sources, the article does not meet the bar and should be deleted. gidonb (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Conservation in Uganda per WP:ATD. There is enough here to have a small subection in conservation in Uganda. The organization is cited as a source of information in academic literature on the subject, so it is reasonable to include content on the organization in that article. Fails WP:ORG/WP:SIGCOV per buidhe's analysis. Pinging Gidonb, VTVL, and buidhe to consider this merge proposal.4meter4 (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skeptical that it would be due weight to mention this org in conservation in Uganda. (t · c) buidhe 18:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think it will do the exact opposite, which is bring some needed balance to the article which completely ignores any domestic conservation organizations working in Uganda, or even any relevant laws/legislation/actions by the Ugandan government . Right now the article only covers colonial era conservation efforts and international organizations working in Uganda, without looking at anything more recent or anything done by the Ugandan people themselves through either their government or non-profit NGOs like PROBICOU. The section in the book Access to Environmental Information in Uganda could also be used to source some content on other relevant organizations in addition to PROBICOU with an eye at bringing balance to the article.4meter4 (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, support for Keep, Delete and Merge. If this article was merged, can there be a consensus on the merge target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, no objection to a selective merge (not including, for example, the info box!). Rather than as a new section, this could be included in the history section with just a few details. In case of a selective merge, please use the correct name in my initial comment. The current name is a mess. gidonb (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2022 (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.