Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Save the Tiger Fund


 * 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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Save the Tiger Fund

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This shouldn't be a standalone article but rather merged into ExxonMobil or another related article. Most of this seems to be written like an advertisement meant to promote ExxonMobil's fundraising abilities and attentiveness to climate and animals (itself subject to debate). Other than maybe to promote ExxonMobil, what's important about this? InvadingInvader (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Organizations. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete because subject fails WP:GNG; any significantly wide coverage is limited to sources that aren't independent of the subject (as per Google News and Google search). The correct procedure for a merger would be WP:PAM, not AfD. The ExxonMobil article is 182kB large. The argument to Merge would somehow be contradicted by the WP:SIZERULE which says that articles >100kB Almost certainly should be divided. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎  10:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete It was never developed to be recognizable enough. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Limited and non-independent coverage means it fail GNG. There's also the issue of it being written in a promotional rather than encyclopedic manner. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I note that nobody has commented on the many sources that can be found by clicking on "scholar" and "books" above. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar in this case would only support notability in tandem with the press. An organization or event like this would not have its notability established by scholarly articles alone. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nominator and others. The subject is a WP:GNG and WP:NORG fail. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2022 (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.