Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. Youth Corps


 * 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. Fram (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Youth Corps

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nom. This was PRODed but I'm really unsure about it. Reason for PROD was, "Non-notable youth organization with no coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." I almost endorsed the PROD since it is a WP:COI but I'm not convinced this would be entirely uncontroversial. As this is a procedural nom, I am neutral at this time, but may change depending on the outcome of this discussion. Redfarmer (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep'. While I really don't like the idea of the subject, sources are available, although they're scant, few and far between, and nowhere near enough to justify an article of this size.  Celarnor Talk to me  09:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Check the dates. Those articles are almost 50 years old, a completely different organization. Potatoswatter (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah. I didn't actually read the article in depth; with similar ideals and functions (at least sort of), I just assumed it had been some kind of long-running thing.  Apparently, it went under a different name until 2007; prior to that, it was "Stargate International"(!?!), and there's nothing on that either.  Celarnor Talk to me  09:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:AB => WP:COI. We don't really know what this guy is talking about, and although I find it strongly unappealing, I suspect the emphasis on structure would be an advertisement to someone in the market. In any case, it doesn't pass WP:CORP. The first few paragraphs really seem to imply it's a for-profit operation, although the vagueness is shady. Potatoswatter (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, it's not a military camp for downtrodden yoots. Haworth is 17-18 years old himself, and he's been "founding" these organizations since he was 13 whilst moving around the country. Can't blame him for that, but this organization is guaranteed nonexistent. Potatoswatter (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's what I figured it was; the news sources made sense to me considering the name and lead of the article, so that's why I said keep.


 * Delete. No sources available, COI, no assertable notability.  Potentially a hoax.  Celarnor Talk to me  09:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. No available sources,no assertable notability. Stoic atarian (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Something made up in school one day. MrPrada (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, apparent hoax. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:30, 24 April 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.