Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action Deaf Youth


 * 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 keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Action Deaf Youth

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Promotional article on a subject which is non-notable. Searched around and found nothing much Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Northern Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Promotional articles can be edited to be more neutral. When using search engines, adjust your location settings to find more relevant results (e.g. google.co.uk). Make use of the Internet Archive and Wikipedia Library. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep as this is the largest deaf youth organisation in Northern Ireland, and current sourcing satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NONPROFIT. Most in-depth coverage is the 2017 article in BelfastLive – although it includes quotes from two members from the charity, it is a lengthy piece which also includes many paragraphs of text written by reporter Sarah Scott. Other significant coverage includes two articles in Belfast Telegraph – one of which doesn’t count toward notability, as it’s contributed by co-founder Malachy McBurney, but the other focuses on a landmark report co-authored by the Northern Irish Deaf Youth Association (as Action Deaf Youth was previously known) which was presented to the Ministry of Education. The 2022 article in Larne Times is also helpful in providing a summary overview of the charity. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There are 21 references here and the nominator hasn't given any reason why these aren't adequate or why the subject isn't notable. Article can be rewritten to be less promotional but I don't see any major problems. Garuda3 (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2022 (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.