Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ventana Wilderness Alliance


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Star  Mississippi  01:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Ventana Wilderness Alliance

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

A run of the mill local "cause" organization with little coverage beyond local area. Coverage in broader area sources are trivial, such as "Sykes had become an “attractive nuisance,” said Mike Splain, executive director of the Ventana Wilderness Alliance."

An article on company/organization needs significant, independent, reliable coverage in multiple sources and at least one of those needs to be a regional or national source. Graywalls (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies,  and California. Graywalls (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  04:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak keep: This article by a California-wide magazine might count as regional significant coverage:, but it's an obscure publication. There's lots of information about this group out there, but as nom pointed out it's almost all local, affiliated with the VWA, and/or routine nonprofit listings.  The article is well-written and informative, so it would be a shame to delete it, but without better sourcing that might be the only answer. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , This is an organization, so NCORP is the stanard to be met. "obscure publication" would likely not pass WP:AUD Graywalls (talk) 23:08, 5 April 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.