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. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Conservation Nepal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

lacks significant independent coverage, relies on non-reliable sources, or serves as promotional content rather than a neutral, verifiable encyclopedic entry Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, Environment, and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Came into thinking about !voting redirect to List of Birdlife Partners, but I've found several sources which discuss this particular organization in detail enough for WP:NORG. Their vulture program[1][2][3] and birding app[4][5] in particular both got international attention, and I've incorporated that information into the article. There's a lot of passing mentions in scholar sources, due the amount of data BCN produces on Nepalese bird populations, so I'm still filtering through those to see if there's anything in academia about them (given the coverage so far, I strongly suspect there might be - absolutely there's some in connection with the Indian vulture crisis). But anyways, I've rewritten the article and the new sources in it should demonstrate how it passes WP:GNG and NORG. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 21:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: article has been greatly improved since nomination and passes NORG. मल्ल (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Big improvement in content and sourcing since this was first listed here. — Maile (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: based on improvements done.Yolandagonzales (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2025 (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.