Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Youth Fellowship


 * 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. This one is a bit more difficult to assess. On the face of the discussion, there may be no immediate consensus to delete; but it's clear that lacking some plausible sources in Korean, what little coverage there is does not meet GNG (in particular, none are about the group itself). Given that this has been listed for a month with no improvement, delete now without prejudice for recreation if sources can be found in the future. &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

International Youth Fellowship

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Organization does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. There are two pieces of news coverage that I'm aware of:, and. While this technically meets WP:GNG, I still don't think it really indicates notability. The first article is about one specific event in India, and it's published in the city section of TOI. The second covers a trivial "controversy" involving a couple of event attendees. As such, I don't think this organization is notable enough for inclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - A search for "International Youth Fellowship" and a couple follow-up clicks brings one to material such as THIS PIECE from the New York Times about International Youth Fellowship/Good News Corps. Based upon this, I would suggest a name change to Good News Corps. Here's a blog post on "THE GOOD NEWS CULT", which doesn't count towards notability but should be of help in digging up additional published material on this New Religious Movement. THIS BLOG POST, which does not count towards notability, alludes to published coverage on the IYF in The Daily Pennsylvanian, which does. Although not showing sufficient sourcing in the piece, this is pretty obviously a group which is the subject of multiple instances of independently-published coverage in the mainstream press. Carrite (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I now see the nominator has already provided the NYT link. One would think this would have deterred the initial nomination. Carrite (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect there is probably massive amounts of sourcing in Korean. Someone capable should investigate that. Carrite (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was aware of the NYT post. And, having read it, we can't use it in the article, because doing so would violate WP:UNDUE. The article is a one-off complaint by 2 people who claim that they didn't know the group is religious before going to one of their camps. No corroborating evidence was provided, no investigation was begun, and the group itself denied it. We cannot include negative information about a group based upon the passing claims of two people. Had the article been an in-depth analysis of the group, or showing some sort of overall trend, it would indicate notability, but as written it does not. It seems odd to hang notability on a source that WP:NPOV says we can't use. However, on the Korean sources issue, you could be right--if someone can find said sources and provide trustworthy partial translations, we could consider keeping the article. Care would be needed to ensure the sources meet WP:RS, since it can be a little tricky (in my experience) with Korean sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theo polisme  01:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 17:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Per nominator's own sources. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There is coverage of them from reliable sources but it isn't significant. Morefoolhim 20:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep They are just about notable. Plaintive plaintiff (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the deletion nomination. --Elongated shorty (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2012 (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.