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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant Action League (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)

Lack of significant coverage of this organization in independent sources beyond trivial mentions. Article appears written mainly for promotional reasons. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC) (updated 21:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Elephant Action League is doing really interesting work related to wildlife conservation. No one else is doing this kind of undercover investigative work and that is why I wrote the article. I have added a number of references that better identify, from outside/significant sources, what the organization has been involved in. Please reconsider deleting this article. --Kasvt44 (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Kasvt44[reply]

Thanks for your efforts to improve the article. However, Wikipedia's notability guidelines require independent sources that cover the topic in detail. So far all the sources I've seen are about the WildLeaks project or Crosta himself, the founder of the group. All of them mention the League only in passing; I haven't found significant independent coverage of the group's goals, activities, social impact, etc. I'm just not seeing evidence of notability; the one potential exception being the Men's Journal profile of Crosta, which mentions some of the group's earlier work. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Substantive coverage of the organization's activities in The Guardian [1], The Independent (South Africa) [2], plus the coverage already mentioned in the article. Notable, and the article is not excessively promotional. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Guardian piece is by Crosta himself, and so is not an independent source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Duly noted. Other Guardian coverage of the organization's activities includes [3] and [4]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm still not seeing detailed coverage of the organization itself – to me this (and the cited sources in the article) is mostly WP:NOTNEWS material: EAL is described as a group that did an investigation/published a report, while Crosta provides some quotes to journalists about said investigation or report. In none of these articles is EAL the main subject. Where's the in-depth coverage of the organization, its history, its social impact, etc.? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2017 (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.