Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries

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. There is consensus here that GNG is met. Editors interested in keeping this are encouraged to add the sources they have found to the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not notable; doesn't pass GNG or NORG. GFAS is mostly "mentioned in passing" in articles that cover some organization GFAS "accredits", followed by the same repeated press release blurb about GFAS. There is never any actual coverage of GFAS itself (that I can tell from a 30-60 minute search on the subject). GFAS may well exist in real life, and they might indeed do the work "they say" they do, but I'm not finding the secondary source notability factor. Normal Op (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Trivial to find secondary sources, for instance: The International Encyclopedia of Primatology, 3 Volume Set, Ethical Debates in Orangutan Conservation, and Infrastructure Development and Ape Conservation all have extensive coverage.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability requirements contrary to what's being claimed. Suppafly (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Suppafly? You created this article five years ago and still haven't given it a single citation. That little "1" you see is not a citation; it's really an external link. And it's a broken link, too. The Wayback Machine shows it's a two-page color brochure. If GFAS is notable, you need to SHOW it; not just state your opinion on some AfD. Normal Op (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with User:Eostrix.Knox490 (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 04:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am underwhelmed by all of your contributions. At least Eostrix has tried. And it's depressing that you all have an opinion but no one has been willing to edit the article to SHOW the subject is notable. Normal Op (talk) 08:41, 2 August 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.