Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thornberry Animal Sanctuary


 * 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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Thanks to for saving the article. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 14:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thornberry Animal Sanctuary

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article had no assertion of notability when I initially tagged it for speedy. There is one now, but a very weak one. The creator seems to think that the importance of the sanctuary's mission statement constitutes by itself an assertion of notability for the sanctuary itself, which, of course, is not the case. The references, added by a third party, are trivial. Delete. Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 23:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is important, I consider it very informative and is notable enough for Wikipedia in my opinion. So I think it should stay. Jammy (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep'. Information available in independent sources (BBC News Online, e.g.). --Oldak Quill 00:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The information in the references provided do not verify the contents of the article beyond that the charity exists and that it "rescues thousands of mistreated and abandoned animals each year". I see no significant, in-depth coverage by third-party sources to demonstrate that this is a notable organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmxl5 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I initially tagged an horrible first-person version for deletion as spam. The issue now is notability. I am inclined to say that if every scondary school that can manage to write a decent article about itself is automatically notable; if two platforms on the edge of a park qualify for an article; then an animal sanctuary counts as notable. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that the nobility of an organization's mission should be of no significance to its notability for the purpose of WP inclusion. However, I would argue that the referenced third-party coverage is not "trivial" as defined in WP:ORG. Three of the pieces are specifically about the organization and its founder; and two others illustrate the sanctuary's local and even regional impact. The founder also received national recognition. In general, there is no requirement that all information in an article be referenced to independent sources; for non-controversial, factual details (history, facilities, etc.) WP:ORG says that using primary sources, such as the organization's website, is OK. If the veracity of such information is challenged, it should of course be substantiated or removed; but I don't think this is a significant problem in the current version. Hqb (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2008 (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.