Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Program on Forests

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 speedy keep. WP:SKCRIT#1 (nominator withdrawal). I !voted, but since this is merely a procedural close, invoke WP:IAR, as, after all, the discussion itself isn't closed, just moving to either the article talk page or at WP:RM, per process. (non-admin closure) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Program on Forests

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

Article fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I haven't had time to do much work on this one, and I won't work too hard on it if the community decides to delete/merge. switchintoglide (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A basic WP:BEFORE search would have suggested to the nom that the subject was notable (plenty of coverage- both in-depth and persistent- in reliable, independent sources, as well as in the relevant literature). Indeed, as a World Bank program, it would perhaps be odd if it was not. Yes the article could do with tidying up (and doubtless undergoing expansion, as there is clearly much more to be said on the subject), but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to World Bank (striking nom and proposing Merge; the depth of coverage is not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH and support a standalone article - news articles primarily simply acknowledge the program existst) Chetsford (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2018 (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.