Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shout Out UK


 * 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 article's subject is found to not be notable. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Shout Out UK

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

At first sight it appears well referenced, but dig into the references and you see passing mentions, and work by the founder. One reference might be useful for a bio of the founder but seems to be less useful for the entity he founded. I'm willing to reconsider this nomination if references can be found that demonstrate and verify genuine notability, but, until then, this is a somewhat minor student newspaper, at least as expressed in this article.

Those entering this discussion may wish to take note of the major sock puppet campaign to vandalise this article. The investigation(s) may be seen via Sockpuppet investigations/Nucleargeek and the article talk page. It is possible that the deletion discussion may be similarly disrupted, hence this alert Fiddle   Faddle  23:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Yes, I was the WP:AFC reviewer who accepted the draft. It was a very different article then. I realise that someone is going to point out the irony that the accepting reviewer has also proposed it to be discussed for deletion, so I have done so myself. Fiddle   Faddle  23:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete- these are all the references that seem to exist for this organisation (people looked for more when the article was culled last week), and they're only sketchy, passing references. There's no real evidence of notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep- The sources for this article include 2 mainstream media publications, 1 known UK charity and 1 mainstream local newspaper. many articles in wikipedia are shorter and have LESS sources than this. The article was fine until 1 individual was hell bent on vandalizing it and I don't think we should let such an action delete the article. Yes, the vandalism was persistent and he spent many, MANY hours vandalising, but considering the credibility of the sources and the new nature of the organisation I believe we should retain the article. Again, the sources may not seem much, but wikipedia has many other articles that have less sources.

I suggest the article should remain as it is, it is still a valuable piece of information on an organisation in the UK which some would wish to know about, in the end that is what wikipedia is about. Helloskiable (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Further to what I said I would like us all to consider the following references I have found: Official parliament week website (part of the UK govt) https://www.parliamentweek.org/partner/shout-out-uk-the-worldwide-news-network

Youth Media Agency Directory (UK directory for youth and student media) http://www.youthmediaagency.org.uk/directory/shout-out-uk/

Youth Media Agency of the month: http://www.youthmediaagency.org.uk/youthmediaofthemonthshoutout/

Open Media, a large internet campaign group: https://openmedia.org/blog/shout-out-uk-drip-now-law-giving-uk-government-more-power-over-your-privacy

Youth Space, a recognized local charity: http://www.youthspace.haringey.gov.uk/news/shout-out-uk

RAGA, a recognized think-tank/media platform http://www.raga.org/news/category/shout-out-uk

Platform1st, a small youth blog http://platform1st.co.uk/?p=702

Fougen, a foundation to help young people, sponsored by the Mayor of London http://www.fougen.org/#!shout-out-uk-/c1fa9/EBD54655-754C-4C0B-B4DF-8B56E4F4DA63

I do not see how most of the above are not considered or used in the article, also a video released by Shout Out UK on youtube has hit 100,000 views. I know it is released by them, but this video was published on an independent youtube channel and due to the volume of viewers, would it be relevant? I have placed the link below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84_wShLNb4E

Helloskiable (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Helloskiable, it doesn't look like anyone's explained how a subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. For the most part, a subject needs to pass WP:GNG, the General Notability Guideline, which requires that a subject receive "significant coverage" in multiple, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.  This can't be a casual mention -- it's usually the case that several paragraphs about the subject is a minimum standard -- and we generally look for newspapers, magazines and major media outlets.  User-generated content doesn't qualify -- which includes YouTube, Twitter, blogs, most websites and Wikipedia itself.  What we're looking for are articles about Shout Out from the BBC, the Times, the Guardian, the Daily Mail -- that level of coverage.  It's just not there.  Nha Trang  Allons! 19:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - of course the vandalism campaign shouldn't count against the article as it has no bearing on notability and we have tools to lock down the article if needed. It's an interesting case because the paper probably meets our definition of a reliable source itself and yet is non-notable.  While we have somewhat lax notability standards when judging RS notability (in part because RS rarely write about other RS), try as I might I can't find anything to justify an article.  I've reviewed the sources in an earlier version of the article, the current version, and done my own search.  Everything was either clearly not-independent (written by the paper or its founder), clearly trivial coverage (one-two line mentions), or clearly not reliable (pay-for-play writeups).  I am open to changing my mind, but right now I just can't justify a keep !vote. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to Delete. As I noted on that article's talk page, there is no evidence that this publication has a substantial circulation and readership, or is in any way influential. One of the sources appears to be a self-published opinion piece. Others merely passing mentions. The article is clearly supporting the organization rather than the organization supporting the article. The fact that the organization seems to be political or at least ideological in nature immediately raises eyebrows. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2015 (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.