Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Conservatives of Texas (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2020 March 22.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 is a lack of consensus on how the existing coverage should be judged. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Young Conservatives of Texas[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Except for a couple of racist and bone-headed ideas they had in 2013 that made the news, momentarily, what is noteworthy about this group and how does it pass GNG? All I can find is either very local, nothing more than announcement, or a passing mention that this or that person had something to do with them. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a newspaper article from 2003, cited in the appendix of a book, and here is a note about their bake sale. If this group were really notable they'd have left a larger mark in their forty years. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 22:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 22:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ping everyone from first AFD: @SarekOfVulcan, Blueboar, Theseus1776, A F K When Needed, Carrite, Binksternet, CWenger, RightCowLeftCoast, Haymaker, Blaxthos, Joe Decker, Lionelt, Jenks24, SeanNovack, Monty845, Dream Focus, FitzColinGerald, BabbaQ, Collect, Dthomsen8, NYyankees51, Qrsdogg, Kansan, Anarchangel, Jjrj24, and Mark Shaw: ミラ P 22:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My !vote from the previous AfD still stands: the group has been discussed in several sources. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What's funny, Binksternet, is that that's not actually true: they've been mentioned, not discussed. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That newspaper article reprinted in the appendix of a book gets into some depth. The Texas Alcalde magazine keeps coming back to YCT and its representatives in various paragraphs on pages 7, 9, 10 and 11. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a pass of GNG. Notability is not temporary. If this article needs to be improved, improve it. Carrite (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Carrite, the last time this came up you actually had nothing more to offer than the claim "it's notable" and three links to local chapters--which, as you of course know, means nothing. I am still waiting on some actual evidence of notability. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - This already ran through AFD and closed as a Keep. Why are we relitigating this, other than for the reason of WP:IDONTLIKEIT??? Notability is not temporary and this matter has already been resolved. Carrite (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Look through the previous AFD. See how many times the New York Times covered them? Click on any of them, or read through all the other sources covering them. They still pass the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 00:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream Focus, have you actually read any of those articles? Have you noticed that none of them actually cover this group? Is it not a bit of a surprise that none of them have the group's name in the title? Drmies (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - They cover their activities, that's coverage of them. Dream Focus 18:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - No they don't, Dream Focus. Please read the actual articles. There isn't a single one that has anything more than "such and such was a member of YCT", with an occasional one going "YCT supported this or that". Just for clarity's sake, and the people in the back: there isn't a single source in the NYT, or one brought up in the old AfD, or one in the current article, that has anything about the group's history, who founded it, what it tries to accomplish, how successful it is, how many members it has, or what it does besides an occasional stupidity that makes the local news or the HuffPo. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - [1] has their local chapter's leader talking to them, rather long article there. Significant coverage in a reliable source. Clicking the link at the top of the AFD for a search in Wikipedia reliable source [2] shows their activities get a lot of coverage. I read through some coverage they have received for various things over the years and am convinced this proves them notable by Wikipedia standards. Dream Focus 22:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, @Miraclepine: thanks for the notice. The organization continues to receive significant coverage, such as this article in 2018, the appendix provided by Drmies above, a significant amount of coverage in the book American Government: Continuity and Change, 2006 Texas Edition, as well as significant mentions in news articles such as this one published by KEYE, and this one published by The Dallas Morning News. While the editing community of Wikipedia may change, regardless of the subject's political alignment, if an editor where to evaluate the subject on its merits I am of the opinion that looking upon the reliable sources which give significant coverage to the subject, the subject in question of this AfD will be found to pass WP:ORG & WP:GNG. Nothing has changed since the last AfD in 2011, which multiple editors sited multiple reliable sources to reach consensus that the subject of this current AfD is notable (and even if some those reliable sources cited in the previous AfD are no longer accessible due to link rot, they are still relevant per WP:OFFLINE).--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep YCT focuses on state politics. Check places like the Texan or Empower Texans for articles I recall several from there. Natedunning95 (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Miraclepine, I'm somewhat amused here. You put up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moon Griffon (2nd nomination), where you refer to another AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Kulinski (4th nomination), closed by Sandstein as delete--and it seems to me that Sandstein based their close on this comment by SportingFlyer: "That article doesn't count towards WP:GNG since it only name-drops him once, and we require coverage to be significant. But it is reliable, and if you can find a couple more like those which discuss him significantly, that would change the nature of the discussion". All of the mentions in the NYT, which were cited last time, are such mentions. None of the editors who simply say "pass per GNG" seem to have actually read the sources.
But User:RightCowLeftCoast to the rescue--I don't know exactly what they were referring to with what was cited in the previous AfD, because none of that was reliable or significant, and certainly not both. But I'll accept that their citation of American Government: Continuity and Change actually provides what none of the other sources mentioned: some factual details about how and when some club was founded, the kind of information the NYT couldn't be bothered to provide. It's just sad to say the usual "keep per Google hits" leads to such obvious misstatements like "See how many times the New York Times covered them?"--and they didn't actually ever "cover" them. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Thanks for the heads-up. I'll ask our source-assessing e x p e r t Praxidicae to assess the sources. ミラ P 02:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to be notable. And I am concerned that there might be some unintended bias in this nomination—e.g., "Except for a couple of racist and bone-headed ideas they had..." Dflaw4 (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Please relist this because Drmies' above statement shows that the keep votes don't directly address WP:GNG. ミラ P 23:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources discussed in the prior discussions, so the question here seems to be what it means for a source to provide “significant coverage” of an organization. The nominator argues that we need reliable sources discussing all of the background of this organization — articles that discuss its founding, structure, etc. — or sources solely devoted to describing the organization. While I recognize the concern about verifiability, and while of course we should not be discussing anything in the article that we cannot cite to reliable sources, I don’t think an article must describe all elements of an organization in order to be said to have provided significant coverage of that organization. Moreover, the notability policy makes clear that a source need not be solely devoted to a topic to provide significant coverage. Rather, it need only provide sufficient coverage to meet the general notability requirements. This article seems to meet that standard.TheOther Bob 05:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete At first glance, there are plenty of reliable sources mentioning this organization, so it seems like a pretty clear keep. Looking deeper, however, and I can't find a single source that actually discusses the organization in detail - they're simply quoted in lots of places. If we don't have sufficient sources actually saying what the article topic is, how can we have a legitimate article about it? It seems telling that there's very little sourcing on the article itself, and I'm not sure how a substantial article could be written based on what I've found. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nwlaw63 above, and a reversal from my weak keep ~8 years ago. It looks like there is no way to improve this article, as sources about the subject don't exist. Being quoted isn't enough to confer notability. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The late pro-delete contributions indicate that this AFD needs more time to generate a consensus. KaisaL (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do not think it is appropriate to ping participants from a discussion that took place 8 years and 11 months ago. If the first AfD ended a few months ago? Maybe. But almost a decade? No. Lightburst (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not have long lasting or significant effect for inclusion as a standalone article. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my own searching, I'm not seeing sufficient WP:RS to pass WP:N. There's plenty of trivial coverage, mostly reports that they endorsed some particular political candidate, and mostly local (Texas) coverage, often in school papers.. I found a few mentions in the NY Times, but just mentions, nothing of any substance. The single substantive news coverage I found was this article in The Washington Times, which I had previously never heard of, but turns out to be a Moonie paper, so it's hard to take seriously. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2020 (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.