Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild Koala Day


 * 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. Coverage is thin and promotional. Possibly the suggestion for creating Koala Clancy Foundation instead could fly, if somebody is able to find any depth of coverage in reliable secondary sources for that. (I'm having trouble seeing any, myself.) Bishonen &#124; talk 20:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Wild Koala Day

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, promotional due to excessive inline external links Kleuske (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Oh, wow. This is very nearly WP:TNT territory and also possible WP:COI with the article creator (see ).  That said, there is enough significant mentions in independent media     (most of which are already linked from the article)     to support notability of something here.  Suggest Move to Koala Clancy Foundation, stripping out the obvious promotional/advocacy language (Surely its time to invest in koalas before they are lost forever? Really?) make "Wild Koala Day" a subsection under a "Programs" section, and provide more information about the foundation.  In other words, the issues here are mainly editorial, not ones of notability.  If this is kept, I would be willing to help implement these changes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Clean up and move as per Eggishorn's well-founded comments. With a shift in focus to the organization, the available sources allow shaping a reasonable article. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete for sheer lack of sources. The list of sources in article and given by editor above are overwhelmingly primary or mere event listings in local paper.  We often see this sort of source over-stuffing in AfDs and article about non-notable, bands and first-time novelists: looks like a news article, turns out to be a calendar listing. Here's a gNews search ; some, but not much, certainly not enough.  Delete as per WP:SOAPBOX. For what it's worth, I am an environmentalist who has gone 10,000 miles out of my way to see koala bears in the wild (okay, I also checked out a few other species of fauna and the tree ferns while in the neighborhood.  But I am a strict constructionist and even feel-good causes need sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles 6,8,and 9 are certainly not event listings, and I'm hard-pressed to understand how News.com.au (one of the biggest news sites in Australia) counts as a local source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Source # 6 in the Geelong Advertiser is a photo and a singel sentence. #s 8, 9 are primary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per First world problems & WP:TOOSOON. This is all rather trivial and coverage not substantial enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:17, 6 April 2017 (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.