Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Union of Young Farmers

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Union of Young Farmers[edit]

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

Looks like it's a non-notable organisation (in the sense used in Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). I have checked different versions of name of this organisation: English ("International Union of Young Farmers"), Lithuanian ("Tarptautinė jaunųjų ūkininkų sąjunga"), Russian ("Международный союз молодых фермеров"), German ("Internationale Vereinigung von Jungen Landwirten")... The results do not seem to be much different from the last time several months ago ([1]; the article has been tagged with "notability" tag for about a year - since [2]). What reliable sources have been found? Well, there is [3] - a report by Lithuanian Financial crime investigation service (Finansinių nusikaltimų tyrimo tarnyba), which includes one statement, saying that some men (considered to be victims) were asked to become members of this organisation. Not much... There are some newspaper accounts that essentially repeat the same report (for example, [4] - "Lietuvos rytas", "Už melagingus pažadus įdarbinti užsienyje laukia teismas", 2006-11-21). What else? There is an article "Лохотронщик в тюрьме: «Помогите миссионеру Европы...»" (2003-07-16) in newspaper "ЧАС" ([5]) which describes the similar story in Latvia (and ridicules the claims about relationships with international organisations). That's about all (not counting numerous mirrors of different Wikipedias, various "advertisements", directories and other sources that cannot prove notability). So, we have one source with significant coverage. Normally we prefer to have at least two... But even if we decide to keep the article, the current content is still unacceptable (it is essencially an advertisement) and would have to be replaced by description of criminal investigations etc. Now, the "precedents". The German article has been deleted (de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/9. Dezember 2009#Internationale Vereinigung von Jungen Landwirten (gelöscht) - [6]), so was the Lithuanian one ([7]). The Russian article has been kept (ru:Википедия:К удалению/22 ноября 2009#Международный союз молодых фермеров) after the author claimed that this organisation had something to do with "Doctrine of Agricultural Security of Russian Federation" (although I haven't seen any independent sources saying anything about that)... So, what should happen here? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article seems to fail both notability and verifiabilty criteria. The article (since its earliest version) makes assertions that are completely unsourced - any sources offered do not make any reference to the body. Moreover, there seem to be no sources online that would verify these claims. For example, the article asserts that this NGO was founded as a result of "the UN General Assembly call in the year 2000 (resolution 54/120 year 1999, articles 3, 14, 15)"; however the resolution in question, 54/120, ((PDF here) is a general call for earlier youth-related resolutions to be implemented (or continued) and does not in any way make mention of this organization; any assertion that this organization was a direct result (or even an indirect result) of a UN resolution would of course have to be backed by references. I cannot find any mention of this being the case, regardless of whether the mention is from a reliable source or not, apart from the website of the IUYF and Wikipedia mirrors. (In an aside, because of the longevity of this article, there are a lot of websites that mirror the text of the Wiki article.) The article also claims "IUYF members are associations and persons from Ireland, Great Britain, Germany, Austria, Italy, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Moldavia, Russia and USA" without mentioning which associations; however, approaching that issue from the other direction, a Google search doesn't seem to produce any farming organizations or associations claiming to be members. Granted my search was only limited to an English language search, but as the article claims membership in Ireland, the US and the UK, it would hardly be unreasonable to expect that at least one of the farming organizations would mention on their websites that they were associated with the IUYF. More problems are encountered with the assertion that the IUYF, according to the article, has "Consultative Status with the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. That is an assertion that would have to be backed by independent sources - this is an extraordinary assertion not to have any sourcing, whether provided or found. As pointed out by the nominator, the only mentions that he could find that could be considered as reliable sourcing were in passing and negative in tone and looking at a translation of one of the articles, I agree; an article based on these alone would not be tenable. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:31, 16 April 2011 (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.