Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yerba Mate Association of the Americas

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 No consensus. There's an even split in whether the content should be deleted, kept or merged, with no arguments outweighing the others. A merge to American Herbal Products Association can be discussed on the talk page. Fences&Windows 23:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yerba Mate Association of the Americas[edit]

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

Is this (defunct) organization sufficiently notable? Nothing in the text indicates so, and I doubt it myself. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only coverage of this association seems to be a copypaste article that circulated in 2006. Non-notable. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. (Regular participants at AfD will note that I try to improve articles at risk of being deleted.) -- Eastmain (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The YMAA is now part of American Herbal Products Association, which a big organization with a very small article right now. IMHO the proper thing to do is wait until the AHPA article grows a bit, then incorporate the YMAA material into it. Also, YMAA references are used in the Mate (beverage) article; that the YMAA is also in the encyclopedia gives some good background on it. Lou Sander (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 09:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-opened this debate as the previous close did not make any sense that I could see. I have asked the closing admin to comment on the matter in order to clarify the situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my error, had two AfDs open at the same time and closed one with the rationale for the other. Black Kite 06:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-keep. I still think the best course of action is to merge it into American Herbal Products Association, and build that article up a bit. (That makes a LOT more sense than merging it into, say, The Oprah Winfrey Show.) ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: is now part of American Herbal Products Association, which a big organization. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it doesnt really say much which could be added as a couple of sentences in the American Herbal Products Association article. Doesnt mention anything that the association has done that is notable, the only achievement mentioned is it has published 25 articles on its website. MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to American Herbal Products Association. They merged in real life, right? Abductive (reasoning) 07:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are enough for a stand alone article. The organization merged into another, but the new organization has other issues it supports which may be consistent or inconsistent with YMAA. If they were notable when they were in existence, there is sufficient notability for a stand alone article.--Pink Bull 23:04, 24 November 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.