Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OWL (Orphaned Wildlife) Rehabilitation Society


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

OWL (Orphaned Wildlife) Rehabilitation Society

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article is created to probably promote the society and creator may have has a conflict of interest (asked at their talk page)

My real namm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 19:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * KEEP - Wikipedia has numerous articles on wildlife rescue, rehabilitation and and preservation. Whole categories of such articles, in fact. Suggesting these articles, any of them, are created for promotion is uninformed.  And saying the author has a vested interest in the subject is equally misguided.  If you believe you have evidence of such, than link it, don't just toss accusations around. — Maile  (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Diff for claim: Special:Diff/1232260375. My real namm  (💬pros · ✏️cons) 21:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * An existing published Wikipedia article on a similar wildlife rehab centre was used to create this article, along with following the Wikipedia guidelines & policies. I do apologize for missing the COI part. This article was not meant as a self-serving article. It is notable and would be a useful article for any researchers into birds of prey and the impact of climate change on raptors and their habitat. What can be done to make it meet the Wikipedia standards? KTourangeau (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @KTourangeau, you can help by reducing some of the "promo" material in the article. The stuff that someone would go looking on the centre's website for, such as opening hours and events, should be removed, because of our principle of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but also because this information rapidly becomes stale. Imagine that no one whatsoever edits this article between now and 2034. What information should obviously still be there? What shouldn't? -- asilvering (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This is very helpful, especially the part about no edits between now and 2034. I will try to reduce the "promo" material later today. KTourangeau (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I should mention that information about long-running events is usually fine to include ("the org has hosted an annual open house since YEAR, where visitors can meet the animals" or whatever), especially if there's been coverage about it in newspapers that goes beyond "this event is happening at this place", like we have for this org. But information on upcoming events or things like "n people visited the open house in 2023" are going to fail the 10-year-test. -- asilvering (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will keep all this in mind as I revise. KTourangeau (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The article has been revised, reducing the "promo" material. Thank you for your suggestions. KTourangeau (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sourcing is sufficient, including on national news:, . Even coverage that is "routine", eg this one that was published about their annual open house, includes extensive general reporting by staff reporters and is not sourced to press releases. -- asilvering (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2024 (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.