Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Independence

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. not having a good set of reliabvle sources sets this aside from say teh tyoung tories so we can't say that political parties should all have an article on their youth wing. This clearly fails the GNG so not only is notability not met but verifiabilty seems an issue as well. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Young Independence[edit]

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

Organization sourced only to their own website, no RS in article. Deprodded without rationale. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find anything about them other than their website. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 06:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seemingly no reliable sources to be found to assert notability. Will certainly change stance if some are found. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The article looks like a "selective merge" to me into United Kingdom Independence Party. I was surprised to see that the article was founded, per its history, in August 2005 (a notably different Wikipedia). It's also interesting that that date contradicts the official "launch" of the sub-institution in the current article. I also see that in over four years existence "no one cared" to translate the article to another language Wikipedia. I note the article is referenced in the See also section of the parent article. The what links here is sparse but interesting. I note the article made it to a Navbar. All in all, I'd estimate the article is actually worthy of a one paragraph sub-section in the article of the parent organization. It would be nice if their web site comes back up so at least there is a primary source proving this institution's existence... —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article is about the youth organisation of a major political party - a political party that came second in the European Parliament elections and has a high profile. I note that the youth organisations of Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems have articles, as do the youth organisations of more minor parties such as the Greens and RESPECT. I'll accept that the article, like the organisation it covers, could do with work, but I do think that, particularly because of its association with a major political party, the subject is notable and the article should be kept, though obviously I respect the decision of the Wikipedia community should my view not be shared. ^Tom _Phil 16:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree largely with Aladdin Sane's comments above. Young Independence is barely noteworthy of a Wikipedia entry, if it ever was, and anything of interest can and should be merged into the UKIP article in my opinion. Alex McKee (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is poor but the subject of the article is certainly noteworthy, being the youth wing of quite a large political party. I also agree with Phil that consistency with the coverage of other parties requires us to have an article about UKIP's youth wing. The strengths or failings of the organisation itself should not affect that basic notability, though they could of course be reflected in the article. I think the answer is to keep this article and improve it to meet Wikipedia quality standards. Twilde (talk) 11:59, 6 January 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.