Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naturesave trust

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. Sandstein 22:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naturesave trust[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article promotional to an extent and fails in passing WP:NCORP Sliekid (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sliekid (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the most ethical insurance companies [1] and there are sufficient sources with information on it or related to it [2] [3]. Appears to meet NCORP to me. Mathias (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The insurance company isn't the subject of this article, though, the trust is, and notability WP:INHERITORG is not inherited. (And when I say 'notability', I'm not suggesting that the insurance company is notable, either; in fact, this earlier AfD concluded it wasn't.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced promo piece on a minor corporate greenwashing initiative. Could not find a single RS reference, never mind sigcov. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG, and even basic verifiability (beyond the existence of the organisation) is dubious. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not even come close to satisfying WP:NORG Spiderone 22:44, 6 December 2020 (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.