Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rewilding Institute

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 12:46Z

Rewilding Institute

~~While a notable topic, almost all of what little text there is is copyvio lifted directly from several parts of the website, and it serves as little more than an ad.~~ Askari Mark (Talk) 04:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn following satisfactory further work to remove copyvio material. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of copyright status, it fails the content policies for other reasons. YechielMan 05:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing has been given to show a pass of WP:ORG--Dacium 06:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ORG was merged into WP:CORP and its page says it is currently disputed, so iut is not the final word here. Nonetheless, the Rewilding Institute satisfies it by its national influence. A Google search shows that the director is a widely quoted spokesman for a point of view on having large carnivores in the wild in North America, and speaks to professional organizations across the nation, and is widely interviewed and quoted, and has apparently influenced interstate highwat construction to provide better wildlife crossings. Regardless of WP:ORG, the article satisfies WP:N WP:RS and WP:V with the 4 references I added. Inkpaduta 16:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORG isn't in dispute of its basic requirements, only the wording from the result of the merge of the articles. The fact is that the article does not show in any way how the organisation meets any of the requirements of WP:ORG. EVERY organisation is obviously going to be WP:N WP:V because they all exist, this is the whole point of having it pass WP:ORG.--Dacium 21:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did not post it for deletion because it was non-notable, unverifiable or lacked reliable sources. It is posted for copyvio. It would be a worthy article, but not as a c&p. If someone were to immediately begin working on it to resolve that problem, I would be willing to withdraw the AfD nomination. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this happens I would request to pass the nomination to be for failing WP:ORG.--Dacium 21:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is no longer a copy of what is on the organization's webpage. I rewrote the portion of the article that seemed to be a copyvio so it is not. The facts are well sourced to reliable and verifiable independent sources. If it meets the primary notability criteria, then it passes WP:ORG. Inkpaduta 20:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's Closing Comment: I feel that Inkpaduta's further work on the article resolves the copyvio problem, so I will be withdrawing the AfD. Regarding Dacium's recommendation for it to be nominated for failing to pass WP:ORG, I leave it to him to do so, but I do not support it. My original examination of this article revealed sufficient independent sourcing to make it fully notable under WP:ORG, albeit the article has yet to be developed more fully by including them; any interested editor has much material to build upon. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.