Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wildlife Trust of India


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Wildlife Trust of India

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article has existed since 2006 (and the charity organisation has existed since 1998), yet most mentions I can find are passing at best. Fails WP:NONPROFIT. Article has no references, and until recently was primarily promotional cruft. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 18:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the best potential source I could find, and that's certainly not "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization" ~TNT (she/they • talk) 18:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. Here's an article about one of its projects, although the organization name isn't in the lede. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE was not competently done by the nominator. There is lots of significant coverage in google books (note use WTI as well as full name to search within each individual book for more prose hits of relevance as text often uses WTI in sentences after identifying the organization by full name). Here are just a few examples: (pages 172-175),  (pages 30, 41, 51, 61, 62, 65, 71, 73, 74, 75, 85, 86, 92, 98, 216; look for WTI in text)  (page 305 has an in-depth overview of the organization; also passing mentions which verify it as a major organization on pages 172 and 175),  (pages 455, 481, and 495) (page 84),  (page 315), etc.4meter4 (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 4meter4's sources are not convincing. I looked at the first few, passing mentions, appearance in bibliographies, addresses and the like. Do any of them have any actual in-depth discussion of the organisation? SpinningSpark 22:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @, did you actually search inside as instructed above using both Wildlife Trust of India and WTI? The organization is mentioned in multiple locations inside most of these books on multiple pages. Sometimes indepth and sometimes in passing depending on the passage. None of the books only list the organization in just the bibliography, so if you didn't carefully search and go to multiple pages you didn't check the sources properly.4meter4 (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So you are claiming that all those sources have significant coverage? Let's start with the first one.  On which page is this significant coverage?  Can you quote any of it?  As far as I can see there is only a single sentence on p. 175 "Wildlife Trust of India continues to work toward adding to the scientific understanding of whale sharks and their habits along the Gujarat coastline" which is vague to the point of meaningless even if it were significant which it is not.  Nothing that could be used to add to the article.  Please don't tell people to search.  You need to point out where this significant coverage actually is.  Just getting a bunch of hits for the term is not enough. SpinningSpark 00:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously you didn't search properly as there are four mentions in that book alone which should appear in the page search at the top. Regardless, the entire section begins at the bottom of page 172 and continues through to page 175 and is about the WTI save the shark campaign across those four pages. Clearly you didn't read what was earlier for context or you would have seen that.4meter4 (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I added page numbers to help you and others. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I did search properly and found all four of the mentions. One of them is the sentence I quoted, two of them are bibliographic references, and one is a list of organisations involved in the Save the Whale Shark Campaign.  The WTI is in that list along with International Fund for Animal Welfare, TATA Chemicals, and Gujarat Forest Department.  That's just a passing mention.  The section you refer to on pages 172–175 is not about the WTI, it's about the whale shark campaign. The only place the WTI even gets mentioned is the one sentence I quoted.  That just doesn't do it for notability.  Listing every passing mention is not convincing me.  Please answer my question of where you found the WTI organisation discussed in detail. SpinningSpark 06:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep and thanks to user:Eastmain for providing citations for this article and other cleanup. Evidence of notability is still only light, but this is certainly directly and in detail about the organisation and it's clear that the WTI is a major player in wildlife conservation. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 06:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as there is significant coverage in Google Books.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.