Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akbayan Youth

:{{la|Akbayan Youth}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Akbayan Youth}})

not notable, and un-referenced. nominating to see what other think, can probably be merged into Akbayan Citizens' Action Party if reliable, verifiable sources can be found somewhere Alan - talk 23:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Please stop nominating things without following WP:BEFORE. Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. You can withdrawal your nomination if you want. [http://www.sunstar.com.ph/network/youth-group-hits-sk-abolition Sunstar] and [http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=7019&publicationSubCategoryId=67 Philstar] both cover this group, it notable enough to have its actions reported. Many other search results there, which I won't bother going through. This should be enough proof. Dream Focus 04:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep: An extremely cursory Google News search turned up a number of reliable sources which describe this group in detail. DreamFocus is dead on right in implying that this was a lazy nomination.  Ravenswing  20:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: I am not so sure that this is a lazy nomination at all. The news articles mentioned above are not about this group at all - they are about a political issue and refer to something the group says about that issue. Strictly speaking, for the group to be notable, we would need to find sources where someone independent of the group specifically talks about the group itself. Otherwise the witness to a notable event can be considered notable if she is quoted in a newspaper article about the event. I'm looking for some evidence of notability and will return to express my delete/keep opinion soon. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: I found the sort of article that we need to establish notability [http://www.zambotimes.com/archives/26226-Akbayan-Youth-Zamboanga-Participated-the-1st-A!Y-Regular-Congress.html|here]. This is an article specifically about the group and it seems to me to be from an independent source, which is crucial to determining notability. The only remaining question (as far as this source goes) is whether it is a reliable source as per the notability policy as set out in WP:RELIABLE. I am not sure that this is a mainstream news organization, but in my opinion, it is not biased or pushing a particular point of view and probably just qualifies. Therefore, I think we have a basis for establishing notability and the article should, in my opinion, stay. Having said that, it does need a lot of work - not least inline citations. Young Liberals (Australia) andYoung Liberals of Canada provide examples of better articles about similar organisations. Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Political parties usually have a 'youth' organization under them, among many other various groups and chapters and such Young Republicans in the U.S. is a perfect example). Such things are usually included in the main article for the parent party unless they have done anything of notable significance. I can't seem to find anything of the sort with this group. I also notice most articles in a google and yahoo search refer to a simular named group prior to 2006, where this group is said to be founded in 2006 which raises some questions. The article itself is another story in itself of a lazy creator (like so many on here). If anything, a merge, or maybe a stub would fit here (even a stub would need to be a better article). The article looks more like an advertisement than an article. i'm also the one who nominated this article, just too lazy to sign in at the moment, and why this is just a comment and note a vote. also note the reason why we have AFD on here is to discuss it. AFD's don't neccesarily mean delete. to Dream Focus - talk about lazy.. when you do a search, read the articles, don't just look for the name in a title, the title in a search doesn't tell you the content or if it's reliable or notable. 98.254.114.74 (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

:AFD are for determining if an article's subject is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. It is Articles for Deletion, nor Articles for Discussion. If you have a problem with the content you discuss it on the article's talk page. And any specific information you believe looks doubtful just add a {{fact}} tag and someone will find a reference for it. Dream Focus 05:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

:: you obviously didn't read my comment, and apparently enjoy creating conflicts where there are none 98.254.114.74 (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

:::Dream Focus is correct that content is not a reason for deletion, according to WP:DELETION, other than copyvio, vandalism, or content forks. Everything else in WP:DEL#REASON is about sourcing and non-article types like Files or Categories.

:::I have certainly never seen a guideline or even an essay that recommends merging Youth groups to the main group, and it is not my experience that they are routinely merged.

:::I'm going out a little bit on a speculative limb here, I admit, but it seems a little unlikely for any one editor to have witnessed this 'usual' merging, in any case, because once the articles had been merged there would be no distinction between a main group article that had not yet split, and a main group article that had had a Youth article merged with it. I also see Merge requests for articles that are already at 100 Kb, so I would not take the status quo of merging as an indication of the correct procedure either. Anarchangel (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - I favor the lowest of all possible notability bars for political parties and their youth sections, regardless of ideology. If it exists, it should be the subject of encyclopedic coverage. This is the sort of information that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia, whether a group has 300 members or 300 million. This is a terrible article (it doesn't even mention the country in the lead), but this is clearly correctible via normal editing procedures. Carrite (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

: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.