Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Healthy Kids School Canteen Association (2nd nomination)

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 merge to school meal. MBisanz ^talk 03:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy Kids School Canteen Association

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

This has been nominated before, seven years ago, and the decision was "keep"--I believe that AfD was flawed and did not present real arguments for actually keeping this. I looked for sources, and there is next to nothing, besides the usual links for an organization that's been around for a while. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Widespread mentions in Australian press. Note: Nominator has reverted a lot of new input rather than wikifying it. Aeonx (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The new input you're talking about is promotional spam inserted by a user whose username matches the article and references which cite the subject as a primary source or use a deadlink. They're not really useful in establishing notability. Elaenia (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was able to find 5 sources which provided a passing mention of the subject (literally just mentioned it once in the entire article), so there doesn't seem to be notability. Aside from the passing mentions, there's close to nothing on the subject. Elaenia (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Elaenia - You have voted twice on this AFD :-). Which vote are you going with? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

@Oshwah: Hm? One of them is a comment reply to another user so I could explain what another user was doing in removing the article. I'm not that crazy... yet... :P Elaenia (talk) 07:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elaenia - OOPS! You're right! I didn't see the signature from Aeonx and instead saw yours. Sorry about that! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to School meal. Does not appear to meet WP:N to qualify for a standalone article. However, this is a significant organization in Australia with around 1,800 volunteer members, and the topic is presently not mentioned at the School meal article. A merge will enhance and improve the merge target, per WP:PRESERVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- North America, that strikes me as a positive idea. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to be a notable organization in Australia and seems to have good references.Masterofroks (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, Masterofroks, but that's two "seem"s, and no evidence... Drmies (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Drmies and Elaenia definitely non-notable. Only passing mentions found and no qualitative sources provided otherwise. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated above. I don't see enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete most of the coverage centres around its creation and its existence rather actual achievements or significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable; fails WP:GNG. Merging with school meal appears to be a salutary resolution. (There appear to be interested parties viewing this discussion; from my utterly unofficial volunteer standpoint in another continent, your organization appears to be doing genuinely beneficial work and the fact that Wikipedia won't [likely] find the organization notable enough for an encyclopedia article shouldn't be taken as anything other than reference-work editors doing what reference-work editors are supposed to do.) Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2016 (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.