Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Healthy Kids School Canteen Association

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy Kids School Canteen Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I'm not sure enough of the non-notability of this organisation to put a prod tag on it, so I thought it would be appropriate to run it through an AfD. They have 96 Google hits, but 5 Google News hits, where they are mentioned along with other school canteen associations. I don't think this rises to notability, but would like input. The article is written in a very promotional tone. Abductive (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. I helped the article creator a bit with this last year. My own conclusion was that there were enough sources out there to have a reasonable article and to make a modest case for notability. For what it's worth, I had planned on incorporating this source[1], but I ran out of interest in working on the article.--Kubigula (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped the "weak" in the keep - additions by Colonel Warden are enough to strengthen my resolve.--Kubigula (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article creator's user name matches the Communications Director of the organization.—C45207 | Talk 23:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep AFD is not cleanup (but I did some anyway). Please address issues at the article's talk page before bringing them here per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In no way did I fail to do the research suggested in WP:BEFORE. Are you saying that my nomination was not in good faith, per WP:AGF? I also note that you loaded up the article with non-independent sources, and you are saying "speedy keep"? Abductive (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BEFORE contains many steps. The section I had in mind states, "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". The nominator in this case neither engaged with the principal author nor with the article's talk page. These are better places to discuss concerns because the editors there are more likely to have some interest and knowledge of the topic. As for myself, the source I added seems to be quite independent. I reformatted some links to better present them in the External Links section. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My belief is that even though this organisation has been mentioned in a couple of news articles, it is still not notable. Your sources are not convincing me otherwise. Let's be quite and allow the rest of the Wikipedia community to notvote here. Abductive (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE asks you to consider tagging it. It doesn't require it. So stop lecturing. He did a good faith search. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: One of the independent sources is a 404 and one of the others does not mention the Association. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 07:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per Colonel Warden. Granite thump (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:N. (Expanding:) I know of the organisation and it is definitely notable, they achieved a fair level of publicity and their work with government in New South Wales takes them beyond the common-or-garden advocacy group. Sourcing should be doable from a reliable source such as the Sydney Morning Herald and various local Sydney-area newspapers, which can be searched via Factiva if anyone has access and can be bothered to do so (not intended as an insult - I have Factiva access and genuinely cannot be bothered) Orderinchaos 10:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as is typical, the Article Rescue Squadron uses bogus links that don't work or are not on the subject. One link is good, isofar as it actually has the words "Healthy Kids School Canteen Association" in it, but seriously, this is what they call a trivial mention. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Improvement I have added another citation and cleaned up the existing ones. Some seem to have expired but they have access dates which testify to their existence at that time. If it matters, we might recover them from the Wayback Machine. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2009 (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.