Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Youth For Action


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 04:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

European Youth For Action

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I found zero significant coverage for this organization. SL93 (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 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) 00:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I see significant coverage in New Statesman Society, Magazines for Libraries, Carfree Cities and a Dutch book Leven volgens je idealen: de andere politieken van huidige sociale bewegingen in Nederland which Google translates as "Living according to your ideals, the other policies of current social movements in the Netherlands".  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a document from the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs that calls EYFA a "major group".  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The coverage cited above is not significant. New Statesman isn't exactly well known, and all mentions are passing – in the case of the magazines catalog, one scant mention in 1615 pages. The coverage does not approach the significance contemplated by the ORG guideline. JFHJr (㊟) 07:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I've no opinion on this article, but it is a display of ignorance to say that "New Statesman isn't exactly well known.." Emeraude (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – per sources user Cullen328 provided above. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Reliable sources give it significant coverage. New Statesman is a reliable source, and whether a particular editor has heard of it or not, is irrelevant.  Other Google Book results appear, but I think enough have been found to prove notability already.   D r e a m Focus  01:16, 26 September 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.