Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wes for Youth Online


 * 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   no consensus. Sam Walton (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Wes for Youth Online

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Organization with no strong or properly sourced claim to passing WP:ORG. Its notability is entirely local to a single area, with no strong or sourced claim to being a topic of broader national or international interest — and the article is relying almost entirely on primary sources, with the few that do pass the reliable sourcing test not being sufficient in number to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. Wikipedia is not a place where local or charitable organizations are entitled to free promotion just because their missions happen to be admirable — they have to meet the same inclusion standards as any other organization to earn inclusion here, and there's no evidence that this one does. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I definitely believe that this article meets inclusion standards. Although noteworthy on a local scale, they are unique in the fact that they are growing at a fast pace attracting plenty of attention. This subject of this article has even been spoken in the Ontario Legislative Assembly — . If you delete this organization, then a lot of organization's that use primary sources (i.e. mostly newspapers) will have to be deleted - example Jer's Vision or Ottawa Folk Festival. A lot of noteworthy organizations are not yet in secondary sources simply because they are new. Online Counselling is relevantly new in Canada and even guidelines are still being developed by the Mental Health Commission of Canada as discussed here. Through a simple search, this organization is one of the first offering online counselling in Canada and is point of reference for larger-scale organizations — . There are plenty of primary sources to support this organization's noteworthy and it shouldn't be deleted simply because it's new and growing and has not yet been put in publications. DustinG1994 05:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Jer's Vision is citing reliable secondary sources, not primary ones. The Ottawa Folk Festival isn't really citing any sources of either variety, admittedly, but it's salvageable as RS coverage of it does exist. But unfortunately, simply being the first (or one of the first) organizations offering any given service does not, in and of itself, get the organization a free pass into an encyclopedia — and neither does being mentioned in Hansard by the MPP for the area the organization serves, or being included in a local service directory — if there isn't sufficient RS coverage to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. This is not a place where any organization is entitled to an article; coverage in a broad range of reliable sources is the very definition of what notability is on here. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this a source that could be considered secondary? This is a learning curve for me... or this? or this? DustinG1994 02:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're on the right track with those for sure (media coverage is the key), but local community weeklies don't count for a lot when it comes to assessing whether the topic is sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia article — they're not less reliable in principle, but they're not distributed widely enough to demonstrate that the topic belongs in an encyclopedia. (For example, if the paper ever goes out of business, there aren't any newspaper archives that we could ever actually retrieve the content from.) In terms of actually demonstrating basic notability you have to look to major-market dailies like the Windsor Star, the London Free Press, the Waterloo Record, the Hamilton Spectator, the Toronto Star, the National Post or The Globe and Mail — local weeklies are certainly valid for additional confirmation of facts after you've covered off the notability with enough of that higher class of sourcing, but they don't count toward the notability test themselves. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 17:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:02, 11 December 2014 (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.