Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Wildlife


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

European Wildlife

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a European environmental organization of which notability has not been established. Its name gives many hits in google (which I didn't check all), but do no give immediately to reliable sources for the organization, addition of search terms like "Noah's ark" (1 of their projects) only gives facebook etc and their own website. Also their own website (www.europeanwildlife.org) has no items/links from reliable sources. I (and several other editors) engaged in discussion with the original author 2 months ago and pointed out the sources should be provided, but that also was unsuccessful. L.tak (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, looks like they might be notable (well they have a nice website), but no citations to demonstrate this despite previous requests and good faith assistance (e.g. when the speedy was declined). As a note, what happened to the talk page? The authors talk page references there being discussions there about why it should be kept, but it's a redlink now? Trying to search for refs is difficult as the phrase brings back all sorts of completely irrelevent stuff (e.g. European Wildlife Photographer of the year), most of which needs to be read to discover its not relevent so difficult and time consuming. I'd like to give it the benefit of the doubt, but it's already had that previously and no improvement has been made. If a decent citation could be found I'd be open to switching to keep.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Danny Worker: It is very difficult to discuss the European Wildlife. Because this organization exists, works and I don´t understand the reasons, why it was proposed for deletion. If you see people, whose "Like it" on Facebook, there are many known European scientists and representatives of NGOs. (I'm sorry if I placed the post in the wrong way, but using of Wikipedia is very difficult for me. I don ´t now, how could I sign this post etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny Worker (talk • contribs) 15:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Some helpful pointers can be found on your talk page, or just by clicking on the help link in the left hand menu. The standard the article needs to achieve for notability is WP:ORG, and this needs to be shown with reliable sources. Note that just existing does not give notability. If you would like any specific help in this area please feel free to post questions on my talk page. Since you seem a stranger to wikipedia, and have only edited this one subject, can I ask if you are a memeber of this organisation or otherwise directly involved with them? (e.g. PR agency, etc). If so, you should also review wikipedia guidelines on conflict of interest--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. walk  victor falktalk 00:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.