Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ten Outstanding Young Persons of the World


 * 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 keep.  So Why  11:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Ten Outstanding Young Persons of the World

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. References provided are either mentions-in-passing (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Edwardx (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 02:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Procedurally adding page originally separately nominated with identical rationale; list is obviously dependent on the parent topic article and should have been bundled (see WP:MULTIAFD). postdlf (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 02:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 02:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep
 * Found these independent international sources, which I will add in coming days:
 * DailyMirror.lk Sri LankaJan 2018
 * SiliconRepublic.com Ireland September 2017
 * Leinster Leader Ireland August 2017
 * Loop News Barbados August 2017
 * Guia Medianeira Brazil December 2017
 * Rappler Philipines September 2017
 * Inquirer.net Philipines August 2017
 * Bogger (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can anyone evaluate the sources presented? I note several tabloids.
 * Keep found this Imrana Alhaji Buba and Adepeju Jaiyeoba Nigeria September 2017. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep the List article, Merge the award article to Junior Chamber International (the organisation that sponsors the award). Both of the nominated articles could use some better sourcing, but so too does the article on the sponsor.  And that's going to be a problem, because a great many specialised organisations find it difficult to get coverage in the mainstream press.  Nonetheless, it is possible for us to take "encyclopedic" notice of the fact that the JC International was formed more than a century ago and that many (most? all?) of the milestones in its development probably happened before the Internet era.  Because of this, I'm not too troubled with having much of the target article's sourcing come from the organisation's own websites.  And merging in the discussion of one of its major annual projects (the award) will be of benefit to the target article.  As for the list article, it's easily justifiable as a stand-alone article per WP:SPINOUT. By way of comparison, the only national member of the JC International to have its own article is the United States Junior Chamber.  They, too, have an annual award (the Ten Outstanding Young Americans) and an accompanying list article for the honorees (List of Ten Outstanding Young Americans).  And all of these U.S. articles suffer the same lack of third-party sourcing.  Of course, pointing to "other stuff" isn't a compelling argument in a deletion nomination.  But I think we can all step back for a minute and ask ourselves whether the level of sourcing needed to keep a set of Junior Chamber articles really depends on whether we're talking about the organisation that is based in the U.S. or the one that is based in Hong Kong. In all, I think the merger of the award article into the organisation's article will be an improvement in the coverage of the topic.  Indeed, the same approach should probably be taken for the U.S. articles, as well.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2018 (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.