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. Sources were provided to stablish notability of the subject. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

California Chaparral Institute

[edit]

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

Non notable, orphaned Athene cunicularia (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ and redirect to Richard Halsey (ecologist) (after creating that article) for two reasons:

Halsey is often quoted as an expert (in connection with the CCI) on issues of California ecology and fire prevention. He's also written some papers and founded the CCI. I think a case could be made for his notability per #1 of WP:CREATIVE.
The sources I dredged up for the CCI mainly involve lawsuits and advocacy, and none of them focus on the CCI directly. Overall I'm not sure if the indep. coverage is enough to establish notability and support an article focused solely on the CCI. I think it would do well as its own section in a larger article, though.

I'm on the fence about deletion and I thought this might be a good solution. Thoughts? Braincricket (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There is a ton of coverage about this group, although when nominated it was a stub with no independent references. I expanded the article and added ~~nine~~ ten references, and I could have added more. Five of the references were ones that Braincricket found and put into the article in a "Further reading" section; I converted them to inline citations. --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If the article is kept, I would suggest a redirect page from Richard Halsey (ecologist). I think an article about the institute is more appropriate than an article about him, because most references to him are quoting him as the head of this organization, and there does not appear to be enough biographical information about him out there to fill out an article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after tremendous improvement by MelanieN. On second thought, I agree with her that there isn't enough 3rd party biographical information to fill out an article about Halsey. Braincricket (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given sources establish wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MelanieN's improvements and rationale. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:24, 8 October 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.