Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWF Hong Kong (1st nomination)

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. Courcelles 00:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WWF Hong Kong

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

This is not about the WWF, but about the Hong Kong chapter of this organization. No notability of this specific chapter has been established. A small notable event from them should fit in WWF, and only if more is found I think it would merit its own article. A references request did not lead to references for over 3 years which leads me to conclude that no refs exist or the community is incapable of finding them. L.tak (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be many sources available. I just picked out a few... [1] [2] [3] Johnfos (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnfos' sources. Even were notability not established this would be a valid spin-off of the main WWF article per WP:SS. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my reading of wp:ss this should (if needed) start as a section in WWF and could spin out as needed (or do you mean a specific section I missed?)... As for sources, only the first 1 was an outside source; enough to establish notability for a section but -in my opinion- not for a page... L.tak (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main organization's article, or to a new List of WWFN members (taking, e.g., the equally dubious stubs at WWF-Canada and WWF-India with it). Placing this information in the context of the larger organization is much more useful to our readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources that Johnfos provided do not come close to satisfying our requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). The first one provides almost no information on WWF Hong Kong and the two other sources are clearly not independent. WP:SS does not in any way suggest that we can ignore WP:GNG in subarticles. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 17 December 2010 (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.