Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Goodall Institute

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. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 16:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Goodall Institute[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)

Fails WP:CORP. Some independent sources mention the subject but there is no WP:SIGCOV to speak of and a lot of these sources are either from the subject's website or press releases/churnalism orchestrated by the subject.Icicle City (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jane Goodall; it seems heavily interwoven with Goodall and may be better incorped at her respective article. GuardianH (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage here: https://news.asu.edu/20230627-jane-goodall-institute-and-asu-take-first-steps-expand-partnership, https://kjzz.org/content/1850833/asu-expands-work-jane-goodall-institute. I agree that merging to Jane Goodall might be the best option though; similar treatment by Encyclopedia Britannica. - Indefensible (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional mentions:
- Indefensible (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC) t[reply]
keep, meets WP:ORG. Also note that there is no one good merge target, as while much of the work of the institute was begun by Jane Goodall, projects such as Roots & Shoots and TACARE have grown well beyond her individual involvement. There are also other projects of the institute. If we were to perform a complex multi-way split/merge we'd end up with not-infrequent references to this subject with no anchoring article and it would not improve the encyclopedia. The SIRS sources linked below represent a non-exhaustive search, there is most definitely more, probably much more (most links to proquest)
1. Wilson (2021) in Evolutionary Human Sciences discusses research done by ~50 employees of the institute, in depth [1]
2. Mavanza & Grossman (2007) in Population and Environment discusses the TACARE project and the institutes involvement beyond Goodall herself, in-depth [2]
3. Lonsdorf et al, (2022) American Journal of Primatology discuss the institute's involvement (beyond Goodall herself) in TACARE and related training, in depth [3]
4. Johnson-Pynn & Johnson (2005) in The Journal of Environmental Education discusses Roots & Shoots project including the institute, in depth [4]
5. D&B Hoovers profile of institute [5]

—siro χ o 21:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Siroxo, there seems to be enough notability for the subject beyond its founder. Article definitely needs ref improvement though. - Indefensible (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Siroxo, significant coverage. And per Indefensible the article needs to be updated with sources like these. -- GreenC 02:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Siroxo and the others. Delete the Jane Goodall Institute? Well I'll be a monkey's uncle, this is one I'll beat my chest and shake my head at, and log off for now. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge I've read through the above and I can conclude that there isn't enough WP:RS to satisfy a separate article about this organisation without applying WP:SYNTH to those primary sources which will innevitably result in a listy, WP:OR heavy article. Jane Goodall can host any content supported by whatever reliable seconday sources there might be, although I haven't seen many of those yet.Icicle City (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find Siroxo's argument the most convincing, with the subject meeting notability policy with coverage independent of Goodall herself. ResonantDis_tortion 09:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article itself remains poorly sourced, the additional sources produced here are enough to support an independent article. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2023 (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.