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. Wizardman 16:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youth United (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested Prod. Article fails WP:ORG#Non-commercial organizations. Non notable organization, I did a google search on pages from India regarding this NGO, [1]. Basically the search results still relevant are only two, that too of their own site. Also the article is sort of a copy vio of their own website (not an exact copy though). Welt^anschaunng 17:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Well I didn't notice it earlier, but after I had tagged the page as prod, someone put a speedy A7 tag on it. Apparently, the creator has removed both prod and speedy tags. Welt^anschaunng 17:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt - non-notable org. This is a multiply-recreated article, the newest version by an S.P.A. of the classic type: It's such a worthy ideal, it's sure to become big. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Welt^anschaunng 18:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• the justification- My article 'Youth United' is listed under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. I have gone through the details for this and I found that the answer to the question why its subject is important or significant, is implied by the full article, particularly, headings of philosophy, vision, and mission statement really imply the answer to the same question. Youth United is a registered Non Governmental Organization, as Rotary International or Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The only difference is that they are quite reputed and old. Youth United solely works for the betterment of Society and Youth and it does not have any profit making motive as per its Constitution. Moreover everything was written from a neutral perspective. Had it not been the case, everything about the past events, activities and tabloids would have been flooded in the article. It was avoided to make the article as neutral as possible. Everything written was written to make the article informative and inform the general mass about Youth United and its missions and objectives which in turn have absolute nature of Community welfare. This article is to propagate the mission statement of Youth United and not the Youth United itself. If required I can send you the official charter and bye laws of Youth United. However you can also let me know as what all should be incorporated in the article to make it agreeable to wikipedia policies.

Searching the NGO on google is quite a speculative thing to do, especially when the organization is listed in India. It takes years for a name to come on google and not to mention this organization is quite a new organization. I have gone through the policies of wikipedia in this regard, it does not bar any one to write an article for a new organization. it also maintains neutrality and above all it just propagates the message which is in accordance with Society welfare and not any profit motive. really soliciting your cooperation,

Firstly, this is not CSD. Familiarize yourself with WP:ORG to understand why this article is being nominated for deletion. Your organization is non-notable i.e. it is not peer-reviewed by notable third party sources, nor does it feature in print media. Being a registered organization is not a criteria for inclusion in wikipedia. If you say that google search it not enough, I'd suggest you bring forward notable third party sources (i.e. links, most notable indian newspapers have websites) to show that you ARE notable. Welt^anschaunng 18:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern. But you may like to consider the fact that this organization is a very new organization and finding third party sources for this is somewhat difficult so early. However there are some print media sources that I may be able to produce to you. Nonetheless, third party sources will be incorporated as soon as possible and for the time being this article may be approved as this article does not violate any other policy of wikipedia. However there are certain articles which does not cite the source from third party sources and still not having any problem. e.g. [2]. So in this regard, I request you to close the discussion and approve this article, with some reservations and liabilities that it will list more third party sources in near future. However organization's official website may be taken as the official source for the time being as in the case of few articles like [3], where the sources are primarily taken from the official website.

Your cooperation is really solicited,

Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extolmonica (talk • contribs) 20:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. Unless the article is improved with verifiable information from reliable sources, its subject cannot be considered notable by Wikipedia's standards, no matter how lofty its subject's goals. In its current state, the article could be considered not neutral and either promotional or a copyright violation (depending on its author's relationship to the subject). The article is unquestionably a recreation of deleted material - its author should have followed Wikipedia:Deletion policy, discussed with the deleting admin, and failing in that, posted to Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than recreating the article.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case I would like you to clear the position of these articles [4], [5], [6],[7], [8]( or similar hundreds or thousands of articles) having no sources at all. These are just similar organizations found alone from the list of Youth Organizations. I believe wikipedia policies are meant for all kinds of organizations be it any NGO from India or US. So with all respect, I would still request you to follow one standard to tackle one kind of situation and close this discussion, in regard of my earlier request.

Sincerely, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extolmonica (talk • contribs) 21:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • responses' - If the organization is new, that may explain why it is not yet notable. Please note, also, that other articles out there aren't very good either is not a valid argument for the retention of this article. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. That's all there is to it. The worthiness of the goals and activities of the organisiation are irrelevant. -- Whpq (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• response- I am unable to understand the subtleties of the notability of this organization. The notability is quite an abstract issue. One issue may be notable to you and one may not. You can not prove the non notability of any entity just by saying that the corresponding wikipedia article does not have third party sources. At least the article Youth United has a lot of sources referenced from its official website, and in many a cases, excluding or including wikipedia, official website is taken as the official and authentic reference. regarding the Google search thing please refer in here. I am aware of this policy [WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS], but it does not mean that these articles are still to be overlooked after having noticed. This is a registered NGO having certified charter and bye-laws. The offical website cites these information only and challenging the authenticity of a certified charter is uncalled for. This matter is quite irrelevant for wikipedia administrators that what are the goals and activities of Youth United.I request you to take the matter more seriously, so that we may finally reach to a valid conclusion and hence close the discussion. sincerely. Extolmonica (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• the request I request you to consider this, and hence contesting the nomination of Youth United article for AFD. I also request you to be flexible and make the best use of wikipedia liberal policies. Extolmonica (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - As per WP:Notability, the way you can save this article from deletion is to provide reliable sources to establish the notability of the organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 21:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Concern 1 - Google Test - Firstly the example in WP:ATA#Google test tells us to see the quality, not quantity, of the links. I used the google search to indicate that I found nothing to make your article notable. Hence I put this article up for AfD, so that you could provide third party sources which I might have missed, since google is not perfect. So far you haven't provided any.

Concern 2 - Notability - A policy is a policy, if they are relaxed for one article, there goes the neighbourhood. Also consider reading WP:NOT. Welt^anschaunng 08:11, 27 February 2008 (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.