Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Koala 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. Cabayi (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Koala Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article about an organisation, cited primarily to its own website and several name-drops and written with a somewhat promotional slant. BEFORE doesn't turn up any usable sources, mostly just sound bites from the organisation's principals (string: "australian koala foundation"). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 08:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Significant conservation organisation (annual income = AUD$4.88 million per the ACNC website); frequent mentions in national media as a RS, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4. Bahudhara (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither are a good argument for keeping. We don't judge organisations by their annual income, and mere mentions in media do not help for notability. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 10:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've made significant edits to the page to bring it inline with WP:GNG and looks justified now. Cabrils (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed you have, and I'm impressed. Were it not close to the end of the week already, I'd simply withdraw this and save everyone time, but at this point there'd be no time to save and this is likely to end Keep anyway. This is part of the reason I use AfD: To draw more attention to articles that have long-term issues that need addressed. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 07:54, 4 June 2021 (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.