Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lama Foundation

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 after rewrite and addition of sources. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Lama Foundation

The Lama Foundation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Lama Foundation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominating two articles, which appear to be of the same organisation. The more recent one has been notability-tagged for 3 months, and the only activity since the tagging has been an act of vandalism and the reversion thereof. The older one has seen minimal activity since its creation, the majority of which being non-content edits.

My searches of Google find minimal information regarding the organisation, with 258 from 340 total hits first page last page, several of which refer to the "Laboratory Animal Management Association" (LAMA). The few links I looked at do not assert the notability of the subject, and I cannot attribute any of the information through third-party sources, let alone find any reliable ones from my brief scan. -- saberwyn 11:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Article is now print-sourced. I am changing my personal stance to neutral, but not withdrawing the nomination. -- saberwyn 22:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - only source is their own website; no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish notability per WP:N. Per the nominator's remarks, it seems unlikely that reliable sources will be found. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 11:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Changed to Keep due to addition of multiple reliable sources. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 09:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - non notable organization. google link:www.lamafoundation.org gives nothing important. So delete unless the articles are improved and notability is asserted. Cate | _Talk 16:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Undecided if weak delete or delete. There are references (so verifiability seems ok), but I've still doubt that it is notable and encyclopedic. Cate | _Talk 18:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Has anyone involved in the deletion process of these article provided notice to the creator and significant contributors to the articles? This is considered civil under WP policies, although it is seldom honored in practice. If no one else does so I will provide the notice tommorrow , if I am able. Edivorce 16:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems at least moderately significant, and there are certainly enough sources to expand it, if someone's inclined. I'd merge the two into one article at Lama Foundation, and convert the other to a redirect. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm working to improve the article right now. Please take a new look at it in a bit, to see whether the new version addresses your prior objections. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• OK, that's a little better. It could use some copyediting, but I merged the two into one article and added some sources. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Commnent I didn't get a chance to send out notices until today. Too busy yesterday.Edivorce 21:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep article now properly sourced with improvement from Hit Bull. Edivorce 21:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Thank you Edivorce for contacting contributors. I don't know much about this place but have known two people who have been there and report its reality and good organization. Don't know much else. The only contribution I made was to give it a category, i.e. Spiritual Retreats. Looks much better since the merge and sources. Cott12 Talk 23:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Important to many of us ex-drugged-out-hippies.--Nemonoman 00:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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.