Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City Year London

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 merge to City Year. SarahStierch (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

City Year London[edit]

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

The overall organization is certainly notable, but I don't think we would normally say the same about the individual city chapters, and the net effect of an article like this is promotional DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add a paragraph in City Year, I don't think a full merger is justified - the BBC London article makes it worth a mention. I was the person who had a look at the article 3 months ago and added the 'primary sources' tag. At the time, I had a look for something reasonably sunstantial and independent about City Year London and couldn't find anything else (apart from the BBC source). They seemed to be doing good work, so I didn't want to propose deletion at the time, but no new sources have been added since. Sionk (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 03:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to City Year. There is not enough content to justify standalone articles for individual city chapters. LK (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into City Year - Under WP:NONPROFIT it's unusual for individual chapters to merit a stand-alone article; they would have to be more than ordinarily notable. At this point it doesn't seem to be so. Some of the content in the current article is about the larger organization; and some of the content doesn't need to be in the article at all ("currently recruiting", for instance). --Lquilter (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to City Year as noted above. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per previous comments - the presence of the BBC source makes it worthy of a mention, but not in its own article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:22, 10 June 2013 (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.