Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YMCA Queensland Youth Parliament

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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YMCA Queensland Youth Parliament[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [1] also nominating:

Northern Territory Youth Parliament
Tasmanian YMCA Youth Parliament
South Australian Youth Parliament

LibStar (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 05:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 05:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; without proper sourcing, and it seems that none of us can really find any, these bodies fail WP:ORG. The overarching organisation may be notable, but these elements of it are not independently so. Ironholds (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to YMCA Youth Parliament, although it is not clear that that is notable, but it can probably be rescued. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For anything to be mergeable, it has to be referenced. Ironholds (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but YMCA Youth Parliament, per Ironholds. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all a quick search of the Courier Mail Queenslands major newspaper returns 1007 articles the most recent article being about the South Australian Youth Parliament was dated 10 August 2010. Editors need to take more care about how they frame searches with gnews as Wikipedia article names are the result of compromises to wider audience which doesnt necessarily reflect what is used in the media where location, sponsors/supporters/proponents are ommitted due presumed knowledge and space. Gnan garra 23:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your search is faulty there are only 6 articles covering this. your search included any article with youth and parliament in it. not specifically youth parliament. and only 2 of these 6 articles actually contain decent detail. Editors need to take more care about how they frame searches within news.com.au and understand how to search phrases. I stand by my nomination. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

did you find any articles on Tasmanian and NT parliaments to back your keep all !vote? LibStar (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasim intended>you should have read my comment i said "A quick search..." but WOW thats impressive you were able to review 1000 articles in 3 minutes.</scarcasim intended> What you did was look at the first result page of the search and decided that 2/6 you looked at were about the Youth Parliaments related to this AFD, were as I went through multiple pages of the search and concluded that on the face of a general search of one media outlet there appears to be sufficient sources because theres a significant distinction between the titles of our articles and the way in which the media refers to them. Gnan garra 10:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with Libstar both re the search and that the quality of the articles - one on SAYP and one on NSW - doesn't look like enough to source individual articles about each YP. There might be enough - if a few more can also be found - to have an article on the YPs as a whole.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try another news service this time the ABC that returns hits for Tasmania, NT, as well as WA Victoria though theyre not included in this afd Gnan garra 10:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way none of these are included in a gnews search, so obviously your search method is subtancially worse then my quick search Gnan garra 10:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this one from Local Government Focus(Newspaper for Australian local governments) reports on the 2001 Tasmanian Youth Parliament. Lack of gnew hits is not a valid reason for deleting articles, there is nothing in WP:NOTABILITY that defines notability based on Google news. Gnan garra 11:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Bduke. I think each of these organisations are only marginally notable but the concept is much more so; as Gnangarra has demonstrated, referencing should not be a problem. Orderinchaos 05:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All A happy little circle of interlinked pages with little content and even less sourcing. Fails notability. Sven Manguard _Talk 05:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. Much like model UNs, these are only significant to those who participate in them, hence the lack of coverage. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 12 November 2010 (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.