Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madagascar Biodiversity Center


 * 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Madagascar Biodiversity Center

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I can't find any reliable independent sources covering the topic in significance so as to indicate this topic is notable. Several passing mentions and references in papers by researchers at the center. Izno (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: this is an odd one. The problem is that we're looking at a small research center in Madagascar, so if it's been covered in the press, it's likely to be in Madagascan newspapers, which won't be well-known in the Western world, and will be written in Malagasy or possibly French. It has produced some good research papers, and its director is the subject of a WP article, but research institutes typically don't generate much noise apart from their research. Nevertheless, they're relevant because of what they do. And that goes to the heart of the matter: biodiversity is a huge, desperately important subject, and Madagascar is the absolute most important special place in biodiversity, for the sheer weirdness of all the stuff that's evolved in that corner of the world. I can't easily justify this article on typical WP notability grounds, which are heavily biased towards plot-summaries of endless Bollywood movies. But an encyclopaedia that can't talk about the main actors in the drama of biodiversity would be a sad place. My lawyerish head tells me notability might be thin. My correctness-head tells me we've got to prove that, which might be hard if the articles are in Malagasy. But my heart, resoundingly, tells me I don't want to see this article deleted. Elemimele (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Our coverage of Madagascar is very poor.  There may well be coverage of this organisation which is not easily accessible.  Rathfelder (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No doubt, but this is not an argument from what we expect for notability. Izno (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. It needs more work and references, but give it more time. --Bduke (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Give it more time" is the answer for a page that has existed for days or months. This page has existed for . Izno (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep because WP:IAR and WP:FLEXIBILITY, and mostly because this is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Obviously the idea of biodiversity in Madagascar is one of critical importance and inherent notability. Hell, the 11 examples of notable media from the Madagascar franchise alone attest to that. In terms of traditional notability arguments, there are a number of academic papers and journals that cite the center as having contributed to their research (so we can make an argument the center has made a significant contribution to the field of biodiversity research). The same argument can be made in relation to the fact that other academic institutions (beyond the center's own partner/parent organisation) cite the center's work and acknowledge its importance (Wiley, Duke, etc). And then there's stuff like this.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 11:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * so we can make an argument the center has made a significant contribution to the field of biodiversity research Is that a reference to an WP:NORG criterion? If so, which?
 * Citing the work of researchers at a research center doesn't mean a whole lot about the center itself. Izno (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, though WP:NGO does have alternate paths to notability that include an organisation's achievements and contributions. And to be clear, these aren't people, "citing the work of researchers at a research center"; they are citing the center itself and its contribution to particular fields of research in totality. This is in addition to citations to the work of specific researchers and the usual "thanks to the center" stuff.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 15:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And I cleaned it up and added a couple of references for good measure.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 11:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Stalwart111.4meter4 (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per IAR, if nothing else.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2021 (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.