Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welsh Wildlife Centre

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. Per WP:SNOW. 'Nuff said. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 01:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Wildlife Centre (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)

Non-notable organisation. The only news about the centre is about an arson attack, but the articles aren't about the centre itself GDX420 (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hi User:GDX420 I would appreciate it if you would cease targeting a number of articles I have created and falsely claiming I am a paid editor. I am raising your repeated targeting of articles I have written at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:GDX420. Your proposal does not meet WP:DP - the article is clearly in need of more detail, but it is sufficiently referenced, impartial, clear, and accurate to remain on Wikipedia. Thanks. Llemiles (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are a paid editor! I have off-wiki evidence!!!GDX420 (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have off-wiki evidence which clearly demonstates that GDX420 is a paid editor!!!GDX420 (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep an 80,000 p.a. visitor attraction is noteworthy for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep lots of coverage in Gnews.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; it is not just an organisation, but a geographical place of local importance, with extensive and varied habitat and numerous visitors. Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a valuable, developing article with good potential. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly meets WP:GNG. Nom seems to be acting in bad faith and the casting of WP:ASPERSIONS is troubling. MarnetteD|Talk 20:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep Some sources on Google, I am leaning into the keep side, but not completely Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per rationals above, Some Sources are found on Google too. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:54, 1 February 2020 (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.