Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Youth Parliament of Canada


 * 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 The absence of reliable external sources is pretty much fatal to the article. Not just for notability but also for verifiability. We can't do the merge because the information can be removed for lack of sourcing. The only outcome per policy is delete but I'mm happily undelete this later as and when some sources do emerge. Spartaz Humbug! 10:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

New Youth Parliament of Canada

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No evidence of notability, all references are to the organization or its "parties". No independent coverage shown. Argyriou (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * note this AfD was inspired by Articles for deletion/Youth Conservative Party of Canada. Argyriou (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unable to find a 3rd-party source to support a national youth parliament in Canada. Found 3rd-party evidence of provincial youth parliaments, but not national.  PKT (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  23:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  23:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with the original Youth Parliament of Canada article. I placed a "merge" on the article pages a while back and it was removed. I'd like to raise it again. While the "new" Youth Parliament of Canada may be organized by different people, etc., it's a revival of a preexisting idea. Giving the old and the new their due and their own sections in one article would be my preference.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily oppose a merge - the original Youth Parliament of Canada article could start with "The YPC is the name of two organizations; one which existed from X to Y, and a revival of the idea which was founded in Z." However, given the complete lack of reliable references to the new article, the merged article would end up with about two sentences more than it has now. Argyriou (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the most productive idea. You'd basically toss many people's honest work in documenting this organization out the window if you take the reactionary route and delete it.  Being the official, national youth counterpart to the Parliament of Canada is enough to make this information notable enough to warrant existence on Wikipedia -- and the rationale for deleting the article is that nothing has happened ... yet.  Which is thus by default as the election has yet to happen.  Merge the two, then; the organization doesn't have "new" in its name anyways. --216.16.236.2 (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "official national youth counterpart to the Parliament of Canada"? Is this organization sponsored by the Parliament of Canada, or somehow recognized by it? If it is, then the orgnization is pretty notable. However, no such claim is made in the article, and no documentation of such a claim has been presented. Argyriou (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. What this article really needs is a re-write, as it is currently too much a news-ticker about its internal processes. While a new and fledgling organization, with a tenuous degree of notability, I have read newspaper reports of this group that are no longer available on line. Just because a news article can't be accessed online is no reason to disregard it. As for merging, AfD is not the place to decide that point, other to say that there is absolutely no connection between the two organizations and to do otherwise is essentially "passing off", to borrow the parlance of intellectual property types. Agent 86 (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You made that point when you removed my merge and I still disagree. Take for example, the Montreal Alouettes article. The old team folded and the new team is a completely different legal entity. But all that is clearly explained in the article and could be so here, to the benefit of the readers. When you created this article, you wrote in the edit summary: "create new article for new organization not affilated with older defunct organization." I appreciate that you feel this organizational distinction is very important and I don't disagree -- but I do feel that this can all be clearly expressed in a single article. Even as its creator, you write above that you believe the article is too focused on "internal processes." I agree and I believe the article split along organizational lines is part of that problem. Lastly, I've taken part in a number of AfDs where merges are proposed, so I don't see why I cannot raise it here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Just because a news article can't be accessed online is no reason to disregard it." However, if the alleged news article isn't even listed in the article, that's good reason to disregard it. Right now, there are exactly zero independent reliable sources referenced in the article. Supply some independent references to prove that this organization exists, and is notable, and I'll be willing to reconsider deleting the article. Argyriou (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge into Youth Parliament of Canada. The first issue, and one I've been thinking about since i saw this page, is that this "new" organization isn't properly called the "New Youth Parliament of Canada". The incorporated name (or name they will be incorporating under) is simply Youth Parliament of Canada. Second, as has been said, while it clearly exists, there are few verifiable secondary sources on it at this time. Maybe once there are, a separate page can be created - Chabuk [ T • C ] 18:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * With no verifiable secondary sources, it would be appropriate for anyone to delete pretty much the entire section about this revival from the merged article. Argyriou (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point. And as you know, AfDs are currently underway for two of the parties, Young Conservatives and Congress for Tomorrow (although that's been blanked), neither of which have external sources, either. So I guess what we'd be looking at in the event of a merge is a short section on the "new" Parliament, with a citation-needed tag.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thinking further, I may have been over-generous in weakly supporting any mention of the org in the encyclopedia. This org hasn't even held its first event, so it may be a huge stretch to even say it tentatively meets WP:CORP. As for being the "creator", it was only to split off the new org from passing itself off as the successor to a non-partisan organization with different values and goals. Agent 86 (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2008 (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.