Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KidsCan


 * 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. clpo13(talk) 22:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

KidsCan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This charitable trust article relies almost entirely on primary sources, with little or no verification of any of its key details in independent, secondary sources. The few independent sources that do exist are based on interview materials and are therefore also primary. A cursory news search similarly returns an absence of significant coverage not similarly based on primary material. Aside from this, the article appears to be written up in promotional manner suggestive of a fan or affiliate. The private charity does not publish financial records that allow it to be evaluated and verified by platforms such as charity navigator, and I do not see a particularly strong case, at present, based on the limited coverage available, as to why this entity should be considered notable from an encyclopedic perspective. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: KidsCan is probably one of the best known charities in New Zealand. It routinely feeds tens of thousands of kids in schools and has even been the subject of telethons in the past. I'd definitely agree the article needs work, but it shouldn't be deleted in my view. Turnagra (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article is very poor and needs a lot of work, but the organisation is significant in NZ and would easily meet the notability guidelines. I'll try and find some time to play with it and tidy it up. NealeWellington (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * While not a large edit, I have added references from 2 national newspaper and a radio station - there are plenty of reliable sources beyond this so Notability is met NealeWellington (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, as it’s a well-known charity. The article is not in good shape but AfD is about notability, not clean up.  Schwede 66  17:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as it is very well known in New Zealnd.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2021 (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.