Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jersey Youth Reform Team


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Jersey Youth Reform Team

 * — (View AfD)

The aritcle itself lacks citations, sources and references. The article is written with a strong POV. Whilst there is some truth to the events, they have been 'spun'. Please see the discussion page from the original article for further issues which have arisen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DariusJersey (talk • contribs)


 * Delete non-notable DariusJersey 13:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The BBC does mention the group, albeit trivially (no mention in the main article, just a link to their website), and it seems that the ECHR case was never heard (did the court accept the case? was a complaint even formally submitted to them? it's unclear from who exactly Small was testifying before). Therefore weak delete, possibly mention the reform of Jersey's law on homosexuality in Politics of Jersey or States of Jersey. Demiurge 14:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that this is a subsisting group. The article is unclear and needs modification however the group is recognised by the national society for the prevention of cruelty to children (NSPCC) which, it is submitted, gives this article sufficient credence to be retained and modified.

The page has been edited after being proposed for deletion is it possible to revert while debate takes place DariusJersey 06:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unless external sources can be found that proves notability. Trivial mentioning, or a case that wasn't accepted by ECHR shouldn't be grounds for inclusion. Bjelleklang -  talk 07:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:N None of the sources in the article even mention the group, and the BBC article brought up in this discussion does so very peripherally, There's currently no evidence that its the subject of any of its publications as required. Claims that the group, such as that it had a significant role in bringing about a change in the law, don't seem to be verified anywhere. View can change if additional sources provided. --Shirahadasha 09:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, non-notable. Realkyhick 06:56, 4 January 2007 (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.