Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet Youth

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. Maxim_(talk) 00:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starblind's argument really swayed my decision on the outcome of this debate.

Planet Youth

Seemingly non-notable local youth group. Prod removed by creator w/o comment. tomasz. 11:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete church event at a church we don't even have an article for. Written like an ad, but wouldn't be notable even if cleaned up. What's next, the local bake sale? Bingo night? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete completely non-notable --Belinrahs (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* Personally, I don't believe that this is completely unnotable. Just because a group hasn't been heard of outside of the UK...does that make it unnotable? And this is blatantly more than just a bake sale or bingo night...this is where people's lives are changed. If you think it sounds too much like an advert, then please, help me to make it sound more professional...I'm very new to wikipedia editing. The Tron (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not unnotable simply because it hasn't been heard of outside of the UK--it's unnotable becuase it hasn't been covered in reliable secondary sources (at least that I could find in a brief search). Chuck (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep*~~Duplicate !vote struck. The page that you refer to also states this - "Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." Also, entering "Planet Youth" into google...the first four hits are directly linked to the organization, as well as five more hits over the following two pages (and that is without limiting the search to "pages from the UK"). The Tron (talk)

- Comment. These still aren't reliable secondary sources, though. It basically needs to have been written about by a third party to substantiate its notability. Regarding the UK-centrism issue: i, the nominator, am from the UK, and indeed from the North of England, where this is located, and i haven't heard of it either. Not, like Chuck said, that it matters. tomasz. 10:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep*~~Duplicate !vote struck. I still don't understand why this article should be deleted. Considering there is articles on here about nobodies like [John Vaughn], for example, who played a good season of American Football at college but then hasn't been heard from since...why should this article be deemed irrelevant? Do I need to find someone else to write it? I don't work for Planet Youth...they're in my area and I thought they were "notable." The Tron (talk)

- Comment It's not a question of who wrote the article. "There are other articles on Wikipedia on subjects of questionable notability" is generally not a valid argument for articles to be kept--see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (Especially when they are very different types--an athlete is hardly comparable to a youth group.) Also "arbitrary standards should not be used" is not the same as "no standards at all should be applied." Requiring a reliable source about an article's subject is a standard, but not an arbitrary one. Show me a reliable source about the group (for example, a newspaper article) and I'll happily change my recommendation to keep. Chuck (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep*~~Duplicate !vote struck. | Northen Echo article...I hope this is sufficient. The Tron (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think that article goes beyond a trivial mention. it's mainly about the church being too small for its congregation, mentions in one sentence that the group is held there. tomasz. 15:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep*~~Duplicate !vote struck. Here and here are two more articles. Though I doubt I'm going to be able to change any of your minds. - The Tron (talk)

Keep based on these two articles, which do provide external reliable sources. (Although tomasz was correct that the article linked in your earlier comment merely mentioned Planet Youth, it wasn't about Planet Youth.) Also, please remember to assume good faith regarding your fellow editors. Chuck (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is written more like a flyer that is promoting the church. Mkeranat (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seems to me that's a surmountable problem and not a reason for deletion. Chuck (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agreed. If you feel it is written poorly/incorrectly, then take the facts stated in the article and re-write it to how you think it should be written. - The Tron (talk)
Delete Asserts no notability whatsoever. Black Kite 23:25, 11 March 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.