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. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 23:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bat World Sanctuary (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)

Difficulty finding in-depth coverage to support notability claim. Nouniquenames 15:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Google news link above shows stories that are specifically about the organization rather than mentions in passing, from sources which include CBS News [1], The Washington Post [2], The Dallas Morning News [3] (plus more), and other newspapers from around the USA. The Google Books link also shows mentions in a number of sources, including [4], [5], [6], and this suggests the people at Bat World Sanctuary are considered as valid scientific sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Boing! said Zebedee  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  20:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sources indicate notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources are too weak, given the litigation and drama around this organization,[7] relevant to the subject but omitted from the article. The CBS article is a meaningless puff piece and the SF Chronicle article doesn't even mention this Texas organization as far as I noticed (it mentions a different "Bat World" in Virginia). The Stella Luna article mention is trivial and the IRS page doesn't speak to notability. The article about the mating calls does mention the organization more than briefly, but its primary topic is something different. Boing's Wapo article is about the same way. I wouldn't call "Do Bats Drink Blood" a scientific publication, and the actual connection to Bat World of publications it cites is unclear, and Boing's other links other than the Jacobs book seem trivial. That leaves the Jacobs book (the one pretty solid source I see so far) and the 608-word, paywalled Dallas Morning News article that I haven't accessed but which doesn't sound promising from the abstract. We can't write an NPOV article (presenting all points of view that a reader seeking info would find relevant) about this organization without using contentious, BLP-implicated primary sources that we shouldn't bring into the article for obvious reasons. It's not ok to strip that stuff out and pretend that what's left presents everything relevant, generations of wikilawyering notwithstanding. That plus the COI editing by people involved with and opposed to the organization IMHO aren't worth the hassle for a topic of such minor notability. So we should delete the article. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I highlighted only a small number of the news and book sources that exist - in fact, I didn't even highlight all the sources currently in the article. If you have a look you will find there are many more. Also, we do not consider COI disputes, "the hassle", etc as reasons to delete an article. And we do not delete articles just because they do not currently "present everything relevant", and nobody is "pretending" that it currently does. Anything that's relevant, provided it is well sourced, can be added to the article (though I would suggest a talk page discussion would be wise regarding anything contentious) - all that has been "stripped out" is unsourced or badly sourced material. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an obvious keep. The sources already in the article are independent, and several discuss the subject in great depth (the sanctuary, is, in fact, the subject). There are no grounds for deletion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There are a lot of sources in the article right now, however both Dallas Morning News and Pegasus News, while both local to the organization, still only offer very brief coverage. The IRS is a simple list of tax exempt organizations. SF Chronicle is primarily about another organization, and the Eagle, despite being local, still offers only brief, passing mention. That leaves only the CBS bit of puffery. --Nouniquenames 14:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per the above listed sources, the sources currently referenced in the article (current diff here in case it changes) AND the first AfD on this page. I don't understand why this has been nominated for deletion so many times, it is clearly notable. This article should be kept and future nominations for deletion should be Speedy Kept per WP:NTEMP MisterUnit (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly. More than sufficient coverage found in independent reliable secondary sources. Just the ones Boing found would be enough. WP:BEFORE should be consulted before making AFD nominations... Zad68 22:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ber Boing. Notability is there ("the largest bat rescue center on the planet") and the sourcing BsZ found looks good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a small, quirky, operation, but it has attracted independent notice from within and without. CBS article strikes me as a non-independent interview/PR rewrite -- lots of Lollar quotes rather than author's assessment/research or merge with other sources. SFGate article is passing mention. Wash Post article is detail about a franchisee rather than the umbrella organization. Bat tourist summaries aren't great, but they are more than passing mention. Healers of the Wild Book has detail; Big Earth Publishing appears to have a significant catalog. McClatchy's Star-Telegram article covers lawsuit award. BWS could have more and better sources, but there's enough there. An article on bat rescue could mention several similar organizations. See Grey-headed flying fox#Wildlife rescue that lists several Australian organizations (only one of which has an article, and that article is unsourced). Glrx (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added a couple more references to the article from Pegasus News and BATS Magazine, and will continue to add sources and expand the article. Perhaps in light of the improvements to the article, the sources discussed above, and the number of 'keep' !votes on this AfD, the nominator can withdraw this nomination and save a closing administrator some time. MisterUnit (talk) 00:59, 2 December 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.