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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of animal rights groups in Goa[edit]

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

List of animal rights groups in Goa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability concerns. The current version fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY badly. The only bluelinks appear to be India-wide groups such as People for Animals; that article doesn't mention Goa at all. No evidence of coverage of the topic of animal rights in Goa separate from Animal welfare and rights in India. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC) Withdrawn per WP:HEY - the article has been entirely rewritten and renamed to Animal welfare and rights in Goa, the directory content has been removed, and sources such as [1] about animal rights issues specifically in Goa have been found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
power~enwiki Elmidae Ajf773 and all, Have reworked the page extensively taking all the concerns raised here. We, on behalf of the Wikipedians of Goa User Group are trying to raise the profile of the Wikipedia in Goa, and of Goa on the Wikipedia. We hope to have your help and support in making this a workable page fredericknoronha (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following changes have been made: (i) Issues focussed on instead of organisations (ii) Shifted from being a list to being a Wikipedia entry (iii) Reliable sources cited, mainly from the media (iv) Significance and relevance of the issue in Goa is explained higher up in the text. Hope this meets the requirements. fredericknoronha (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Working to address the above concerns (i) On notability, am citing sufficient newspaper sources to make clear that these are fairly active, known and prominent organisations in the region. (ii) Deleted all texts which could make it appear to violate the WP:NOTDIRECTORY criteria. (iii) Added bluelinks that focus on Goa (iv) Given background information to show the diversity of Goa animal rights campaigns and how these have their own flavour in a region which is ecologically sensitive too. fredericknoronha (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the additional citations which from newspapers and other established sources. Blue links corrected to reflect Goa topics and links. Text backgrounded better, to make clear what is unique in this context. fredericknoronha (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep following extensive reworking of contents and focus, away from providers/groups and towards treatment of overall topic, and move to Animal welfare and rights in Goa. Nice work! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Am working to correct the above, so it is an encylopedia entry rather than appearing to be a phone directory. fredericknoronha (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed and removed unnecessary details, to ensure that it is an encylopaedic entry rather than appearing to be a phone directory. fredericknoronha (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fredericknoronha, I appreciate what you are trying to do here and the work you have put in. But this is just the wrong scope for Wikipedia (as currently understood). The expectation for an article on "Animal rights groups in Goa" would be either:
a) an article that covers the topic as a single unit, using sources that do the same. You can expect those to be difficult to find - the more specific the topic, the lower the likelihood that someone else has published a summary on it (and that is what would be required as the principal source). Cut off the "groups" and go with "Animal rights in Goa", and it might become more feasible; in fact your first section is heading in that direction. But that leaves the
b) list of (X). To avoid us becoming a rambling directory of random stuff, those almost invariably need to consist only of entries that already have an article of their own. See for example List of restaurants in Israel - a fairly trivial topic, but all the entries have been considered notable on their own and have a separate article. There's no chance that this is going to be the case for the majority of the entries in your list of groups and establishments. This bit will have to go, and that kind of takes the topic with it, unless you want to head into direction a)... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are really caught in a Catch 22 situation. The topics may seem as not significant enough (by global standards, that is, but to our communities this is crucial information) to have pages of their own; AND if they don't have their own pages, we can't even build a list. So, how does one get out of this vicious cycle, please? I have made this point elsewhere that it is becoming extremely difficult for the Wikipedia to reflect the realities of smaller parts of the planet, those which are not adequately understood elsewhere, under-mediated societies (as in oral societies which have a less mature tradition of the mainstream media operating in them), and those which don't have a very active media or are not very strongly represented in the online world. Besides, this is what I came across: "one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles" ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists fredericknoronha (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Made changes to ensure it doesn't appear as a directory. fredericknoronha (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly see the comment above, to correct this concern.
  • My delete vote still stands, minus the websites and contact details it is still a directory. Ajf773 (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Am working to sort out the issues. Kindly share feedback. fredericknoronha (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly see the changes implemented. fredericknoronha (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have taken up the suggestions made above, to improve the page. Added citations. More relevant blue links. Also removed the phone details that make it look like a directory. Seeking your help and support in keeping this list in a format acceptable to Wikipedia. fredericknoronha (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Am working to ensure that citations are there so that the reader might not feel that these groups are non-notable. Please see the updated version. fredericknoronha (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The additional citations make it clear that the entries are not lacking in notability. Kindly see. fredericknoronha (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are trying really hard to get more Goa-related content on behalf of the Wikipedians of Goa User Group, and need help and support to generate more content on the Wikipedia from a small region. fredericknoronha (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have got a whole lot of citations and reworked the page completely. Hope this will meet your requirements. fredericknoronha (talk) 10:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fredericknoronha has reworked the page significantly since the AfD nom, with a significant number of WP:RS. As mentioned by him, this is a small attempt by him and other members of WP:GOA in increasing the coverage of Goa on Wikipedia. If the closing admin still finds that the article does not meet the necessary standards, I would request the article to be draftified, so that it can then be improved and possibly go through the AfC process once it is in better shape. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your understanding of our intentions, @SerChevalerie. Willing to work to improve, and seek assistance for that.
Delete per nomination and merge any useful information into Animal welfare and rights in India: I can't see how the article under this title can ever be anything other than a directory, which would fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I'm willing to change my vote if an involved editor were willing to take on the task of renaming the page Animal welfare and rights in Goa and working on it under that title. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per name change and recent edits which change the article's focus. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It may seem, from a distance, that huge countries like India are just one monolith entity, but in my view, the diversity of its many regions have to be taken into account if the Wikipedia is to grow to its optimum potential and serve these regions as a useful information source. I have no issues with changing the name of the page, except then it might be even more difficult to justify; lists are easier to build and map information in smaller regions which have their own peculiar issues. Anyway, as long as the issues are highlighted, and easily accessible online to those who could benefit from it, it makes no different to me as to how this is packaged.fredericknoronha (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see how it is shaping up. Spent another four hours to knock it into shape today. Please help to make this a good and useful page. Thank you! fredericknoronha (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:USEFUL is not a good argument to use in AfD's and you don't need this article for this piece of information to be included in Wikipedia. Ajf773 (talk) 03:07, 8 October 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.
More