Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific Wild

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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Wild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Not notable, fails WP:GNG. Refs found on GNews & GHits appear to be either PR releases or not from a WP:RS. GregJackP Boomer! 17:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. My own GNews search returned mostly false positives. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I noted that several refs have been added, with problems as follows:
  • National Geographic - trivial mention, with regard to quote by founder
  • Coast Mountain - no mention of the organization, founder was photographer for article
  • CTV News - no mention of the organization
  • Tides Canada - not independent, WP:SPS as organization is a partner, further, organization is not discussed, just links and trivial mention
  • Sierra Club BC - no mention of the organization
  • Coastal First Nations - no mention of the organization
  • QQs Projects - not independent, WP:SPS as organization is a partner, further, organization is not discussed, just linked to

None of these meet the requirement for notability. GregJackP Boomer! 12:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - I have tagged a portion of the article as a copyright issue as it has been lifted directly from a couple of pages of the Pacific Wild web site. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I did find some sources covering their stance on the bear hunt; [1], [2] but I do not belevie teh coverage is sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with Whpq. I found a few news articles quoting them about the "bears are starving" claims, but nothing at all ABOUT the group. Per WP:CORPDEPTH, "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" do not count toward notability. --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2012 (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.