Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fobwa - Friends of Baviaanskloof, South Africa

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. So Why 13:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fobwa - Friends of Baviaanskloof, South Africa[edit]

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

Non-notable, local "friends of …" group. Worthy of a mention in the Baviaanskloof Wilderness Area article (when it eventually gets written!) but not worthy of their own article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Baviaanskloof Wilderness Area rather than delete if Baviaanskloof Wilderness Area does not exist yet. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It can be mentioned or included as a section in Baviaanskloof Mega Reserve where Baviaanskloof Wilderness Area redirects. All that is really needed is a small description of the initiatives they are undertaking, but even that information needs to be rewritten and referenced as most of the current content is of the will be/will soon variety. Who their board members are and when their website was created in really not important. --NJR_ZA (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the reasons given by RHaworth and NJR ZA. The general tone of the article is promotional, (though it is not blatant advertising) and there does not seem to be any evidence of notability. Of the 3 links provided (presumably intended as references) one is to the organisation's own web page, and the other two do not mention Fobwa. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:33, 30 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.