Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Young Democrats Teen Caucus


 * 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 redirect to Democratic Party of Virginia. Consensus is that the subject does not meet WP:NORG. While editors have noted the existence of reliable sources mentioning the VAYD teen caucus, there is a sense that the depth of coverage is not sufficient to pass the "significant coverage" criterion of WP:GNG. Usable content may be merged to the article for the Democratic Party of Virginia. (non-admin closure) gobonobo  + c 13:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Virginia Young Democrats Teen Caucus

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Tp meet WP:NORG/WP:GNG organisations need coverage in two or more reliable and indecent sources. This article is based on three sources by the Democratic Party. A google search brings up more partisan sources but I have not yet found anything independent in a serious publication. Since a clubs aren't inherently notable (particularly not those with 400 members), the article should be deleted or redirected to Democratic Party of Virginia. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The author has added lots of sources in an attempt to WP:REFBOMB. While I can see that the majority is from the subject's website, I'm unable to open some because they're for some reason unavailable in the UK. From those that I could open, none has changed my assessment of the article. I trust that some of those who'll !vote in this discussion will be able to open those sources. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources added include four references to news articles, as is required by WP:NORG/WP:GNG. If there is an issue with WP:REFBOMB, those specific sources can be removed from the article, but there is absolutely no reason to delete the article in its entirety. Super Virginian (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Super Virginian
 * The point of this AfD is not the refbombing or the number of newspaper sources: what we need is significant coverage (i.e. sustained and focussed) in a reliable (i.e. of high quality) publication unaffiliated with the subject. I can't tell whether this is met because, as I have said above, I'm unable to open some of the new sources. But I can give you an example of what the kinds of problems are that people here will look at: there is this one article in the Roanoke times (I can't access it) with the title 'House passes DEl. Rasoul's youth civic engagement bill'. Now, questions here might be whether this is actually an in-depth article about the subject to whether they're just mentioned briefly. So, it's about the quality and depth of the sources, not their number. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are four references to news articles, not just one. One is titled "Young Democrats to host advocacy training for local high-schoolers," published in InsideNOVA, a respected Virginia news site. Another is titled, "Virginia Young Democrats Teen Caucus advises teens on how to get involved." The last is titled, "Virginia Young Democrats announce High School Leadership Academy."  The coverage in these three articles are exclusively about this organization and display that in their headlines. Super Virginian  — Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's not continue this discussion: it's futile because I can't access these articles. It's up to the other !voters to decide whether these sources constitute the quality of coverage you say they do. Please note that I've indented our comment as to comply with the usual formatting of these discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Subject is a subset of Virginia Young Democrats which is a subset of the Democratic Party of Virginia. The former is not notable, though it potentially could be; a caucus within it is certainly not. Notable information should be merged to one of these. Moreover, "Virginia Young Democrats Teen Caucus advises teens on how to get involved" is an infographic for teens, not actually about this caucus. "Virginia Young Democrats announce High School Leadership Academy" and "Young Democrats to host advocacy training for local high-schoolers" are almost identical to each other, both fleeting local news about one of VAYD's initiatives, not the teen caucus itself. So I don't see anything that makes this caucus notable, sorry. Reywas92Talk 19:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The Teen Caucus is an actual caucus with around 400 members. They are on the VA Young Dems website and every executive board member has an @vayd.org email. Furthermore, deleting this article would essentially be erasing the Teen Caucus's Wikipedia presence on the basis and personal beliefs of one person. Also just to let you know that there is a Georgia Teen Republicans Wikipedia page wherein their first paragraph they mention not being sponsored by the GAGOP anymore. Perhaps there is a focus on the wrong Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffrieChambers (talk • contribs)
 * Please familiarize yourself with WP:N and WP:NORG, we don't keep articles just because board members have official emails – no one is suggesting this is not an actual caucus, just that Wikipedia articles are not based on whether they exist. You're telling me this caucus doesn't even have their own website, so why should it get its own Wikipedia article? Each of the 14 caucuses is mentioned on the VAYD website, so why should this caucus in particular have an article? It need to pass WP:NORG guidelines. Again, Virginia Young Democrats may be a notable topic, where the teen caucus may be acknowledged. And thanks for the heads up, see Articles for deletion/Georgia Teen Republicans – this is about Wikipedia policy that topics need significant coverage in independent sources, not personal beliefs. Reywas92Talk 06:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete not even close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: It has been covered by the Washington Post. If that's not notable I don't know what is. Super Virginian (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * About the Washington post article: yes, this constitutes reliable and independent coverage. However, note that several such sources need to cover the subject in depth per WP:GNG. I also think that, following established practice, it might be a viable option to add information about this caucus to a potential page about the Virginia Young Democrats as a whole, as suggested by Reywas92. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As noted above, the organization has also been covered by InsideNOVA, Agusta Free Press, DemRulz, the Roanoke Times, and the McLean Highlander. That's 6. Super Virginian (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: This organization has also been covered by Pehal News, an Indian news organzation. It has received international coverage.  Super Virginian (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you haven't given a link, I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. But there is an article on that news site (here's the link) talking about the incident mentioned by the Washington Post. It's clearly syndicated and even gives the Post article as its source. Per WP:SYNDICATED, such sources are not to be considered independent of each other. Reywas92 has explained why these other sources do not count towards notability. Pleas stop prefacing your new comments with 'keep'. Each editor may only !vote once in these discussions, so you could either add your new comments under existing ones or preface them with 'comment'. (I've changed it for you in this one.) Modussiccandi (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Deleteper Reywas92. This organization has apparently been around since 1932, but I could find very little in GBooks. NCORP Fail. Possibly (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:N as a standalone article. Any information worth keeping can be merged into Democratic Party of Virginia and High School Democrats of America. --RaviC (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Democratic Party of Virginia. Not a notable stand-alone group. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:31, 22 February 2021 (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.