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, Article was improved during the course of the AfD, all comments since improvement have been keep. (non-admin closure) Monty₈₄₅ 22:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bat World Sanctuary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This page should be deleted. Reason, A7=Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline. They are merely one of thousands of bat rehabilitators in the US alone. All of this entry is cut and paste from their website. There is no independent verification. Most of this entry was made by a member of the organization. Just because they write they are "world renown" does not make it so. LuLauren (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)— LuLauren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete as it lacks notability. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as both Google News and Google Books shows in-depth coverage of this organization in reliable sources. Improve though normal editing rather than deleting. Note that nominator is a new single purpose account whose only contribution to Wikipedia so far is to try to delete this article. Cullen328 (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck through your "Delete" !vote, LuLauren, because you are the nominator and your nomination itself is your recommendation to delete. You can participate in the debate as much as you want (based on policy and guidelines), but you can only recommend "Delete" or "Keep" once per debate. I hope you understand. Cullen328 (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response LuLauren, please study Wikipedia's deletion policies carefully before making further arguments for deletion. The article in question does not mention Amanda Lollar right now, or claim that she is a scientist. The article does not claim "international renown". Your use of words such as "frightened" and "vindictive" are not appropriate to a discussion of the article under discussion here. Wikipedia relies entirely on what reliable sources say about a topic, not at all on your personal opinions. What you say may or may not be true, but unless your charges are reported in reliable sources, they are irrelevant and will carry no weight in this debate. I will assume that you are acting in good faith, but must ask you to base your arguments on our established policies and guidelines. Editing by those with a conflict of interest can be corrected by further editing by those committed to the neutral point of view, if the topic itself is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've expanded the article and added four sources. Cullen328 (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. Google books reveals sufficient non-trivial coverage to justify an article. Nomination strikes me as a little odd. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 08:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Coverage in the press appears to be quite common as the Google news search results show many hits. Perhaps not all of them represent substantial coverage but certainly enough of them do to establish notability. In addition to the references added to the article by Cullen328 (thanks!), there's also this and this as additional examples. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to the sources added by Cullen, this story from CBS News asserts that the facility is "the largest bat rescue center on the planet". I added it to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2011 (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.