Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young People Matter (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Young People Matter[edit]

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

This was very recently nominated for deletion, but the nom. withdrew it. I don;t see why. The organization is a very small local charity. The only independent ref. which is not PR, is from a local newspaper , South London Press, and one local newspaper article is not notability . I can't find anything else except uses of the term in other contexts. DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search is complicated by the common phrase, but I believe there isn't much to pass WP:NGO. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as previous nominator I was seduced by my inner desire for this to be notable. With hindsight I probably mistook a local paper reference for better referencing and withdrew the nomination based upon that. I choose to remain neutral in this discussion. Fiddle Faddle 23:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(with some regret) Delete -- I can find nothing about it, except their own website and one local newspaper report. My search also brought up references to an unrelated report with this name by the Evangelical Alliance. My conclusion is that this is a local youth and children's club; possibly notable locally, but not WP-notable. One sentence (with an external link) might be added to an article on the locality, presumably Stockwell. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was prematurely nominated for deletion on creation, however more references have been added since then and various content rewritten to reflect a more neutral point of view. With 5 years of operation, I believe a wiki article is needed to increase awareness for the charity. This page would obviously be updated as time goes by.

Also minor edits have been made to address the neutrality issue and therefore this wiki page should be kept. Xplus23 (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Item misplaced on article talk page by @Xplus23: and copied here verbatim except for formatting. Fiddle Faddle[reply]

No new sources have been added since AfD was initiated. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine, though have not checked, that this refers to the withdrawn nomination, not this current one? Fiddle Faddle 17:32, 18 September 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.