Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wes for Youth Online (2nd nomination)

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. I will userfy upon request. MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wes for Youth Online[edit]

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

Relisting following a no-consensus close in 2014. The entire discussion at the time ended up being solely between me and the article's creator, with nobody at all weighing in otherwise — so I left well enough alone at the time to give the creator the opportunity to improve the sourcing, but I see that there have been there's been no improvement whatsoever since (the only edits that happened at all in 2015 were pure maintenance or grammar cleanup.) The topic is still an organization of exclusively local notability, with the sourcing being a mixture of primary sources, blogs, Twitter tweets and media coverage which doesn't expand far enough outside of its own local area to satisfy the wider audience criterion in WP:ORGDEPTH. Wikipedia does not grant groups an exemption from our notability and sourcing rules just because they do good work — it's not impossible for an organization of purely local notability to get into Wikipedia, but the sourcing has to get a lot better than this to make that happen. It's still a delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft & userfy at best because this article is questionably better for an encyclopedia article, currently simply giving a local perspective. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of third-party sources giving in-depth coverage of the organizations events. Local, yes, but IMHO notable. Focus on specific improvements instead. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The third-party sources are all local — but WP:ORGDEPTH specifically states that coverage of an organization has to demonstrably extend beyond the local media to get that organization over GNG. If local coverage were all it took, we'd have to start keeping articles about individual schools' PTAs and local neighbourhood resident associations and individual condo boards — because local coverage of those kinds of organizations does exist, even though encyclopedic relevance doesn't. So WP:ORG requires more than purely local coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2016 (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.