Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organization for Youth Empowerment


 * 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Organization for Youth Empowerment

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

In March 2021, there was an edit summary that says "Maybe notable?". Well, I am not sure.

I could not find any significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources in a Google search. As for the sources already in the article, the second one is obviously a primary source, while the third one is a trivial mention.

It remains to check the first one, https://www.laprensa.hn/honduras/oye-fomentando-educacion-empoderamiento-organization-youth-empowerment-CHLP1287360. That source appears to be affiliated with Honduras, so it does not seem to be independent.

So, I believe that the organization actually fails WP:ORG, as tagged since January 2010. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC) Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Honduras. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've made a source assessment table. As you can see I disagree with Geoffrey's view that the third source is trivial but agree it should not count anyways because it is not independent. I analysed La Prensa's article. I think it is borderline, depending on whether we can say it is an independent source. It relies heavily on quotes and the tone is a little suspicious in that it is a little hagiographic. In any event, even if it counts as a source, it still fails to meet the requirement in WP:GNG that it should be multiple sources. Please ping me if new sources appear!


 * 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.