Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends of the Earth Ghana

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 delete, the clear consensus here is that notability is lacking. If anyone's interested in working on it, will be happy to move to userspace or a draft, just ask. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of the Earth Ghana

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches found nothing better and I should note I myself patrolled this at NPP, keeping to mind plans to deletion since it seemed questionably notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable about the organisation. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 19:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete why is this not notable to you? for Ghanaians this is an interesting topic since the organisation is the biggest (i believe) environmental organisation in their country. you would not delete the article of greepeace USA, so why this one?. —User:macsbetter
- That is a misunderstanding of what "notable" means on Wikipedia, macsbetter. Essentially, it refers to the coverage of a subject in reliable, independent sources. Greenpeace is the subject of that coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~Keep - based on a quick search, I have found some sources that might be considered to establish notability. See, for example, this book chapter, some newspaper coverage, and some agency coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just realised that the book chapter author is not independent of the organisation. Still, the organisation has received significant amounts of EU funding, which has attracted some press coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to keep in light of the Chicago Tribute source found by Worldbruce below. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 16:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Some" press coverage, yes, but substantial coverage, no. And "for Ghanaians this is an interesting topic" has nothing to do with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The king of the sun (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The recommendations to delete seem to be ignoring alternatives to deletion, such as merging or redirecting to Friends of the Earth. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy because the author, who is new to Wikipedia, appears committed to trying to improve it, and because although the organization is not obviously notable, neither is it obviously non-notable. As Ghana's first environmental NGO (established in 1986) it makes a reasonable claim to significance. I'm impressed that it drew several paragraphs in the Chicago Tribune 30 years ago.[1] There is international coverage throughout the 1990s and 2000s relating to its position on logging, mining, oil and gas development, and geneticially modified crops; and there is continuing local coverage, such as [2] and [3] (the text portion of which is only part of the introduction to the audio). More time is needed to properly search the period and assess the aggregate depth of the sources found. Even if that determines that this is not a viable stand-alone topic, material from the research and the userfied article could be used to significantly improve Friends of the Earth, Forestry in Ghana, and related articles. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The article clearly needs lots of work, but that could be a good alternative to deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - Current article does not warrant keeping, but Worldbruce's assessment is spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I am impressed with the Chicago Tribune coverage.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 1 April 2016 (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.