Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Youth Organization


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

World Youth Organization

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable organisation. No evidence that they have actually done anything of any significance whatsoever. Their website states that they are "not officially launching the organisation till January 2016". The only meaningful 'third-party' sourcing - a piece in a local online newspaper - is written by a Tom Hinchcliffe, a name shared with a person whe identifies himself as their 'Senior Press Officer' on their Twitter page. Not that the article in question does anything to establish notability anyway, since it merely reports that an announcement about the organisation's founding has been made. At best, this is run-of-the-mill WP:CRYSTALBALL stuff, promoting an organisation that might possibly become significant in the future if they actually do something concrete, rather than engaging in self-promotion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe the article is credible for viewing and reading on Wikipedia and does present relevant information to educate browsers on the organisation. The World Youth Alliance does not seem to have any better citations. However I do agree, as the organisation has not launched yet it does make it more difficult for the organisation to have much notebale sources. But all in all, I think the article provides sources which are of high enough certainty that it is verified information to be published on this platform. Biotiteegg (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read Notability (organizations and companies) - the sources don't come within a country mile of the requirements. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and contains articles on subjects that are demonstrated through third-party coverage to be of significance now. It isn't a platform for the self-promotion of organisations that claim they are going to do something next year. And no, much of the content in the article isn't verified at all - it isn't even sourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Biotiteegg (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Rosyangel121 (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC) — Rosyangel121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This is not a vote. It is a discussion, based around whether the article should be kept or deleted according to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Simply posting 'keep' without explanation will have no bearing on the final decision. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * When will a conclusion be reached? Biotiteegg (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete article was twice refused at AfC, see User Talk:Biotiteegg, but moved to mainspace nevertheless. Only sources in the article are primary, including their official site, a blog post in the Huffington Post by their CEO-to-be, and a piece in a Yorkshire paper by their "press-officer". Organization is scheduled to be launched in January 2016, but it is doubtful whether under-age persons really can legally open an organization (in Brazil, where they say will be a branch, it's definitely forbidden, people under 18 are not legally liable under any circumstances). Thus it severely fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:GNG. Kraxler (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - With a lack of independent reliable sources, the article fails WP:GNG, and as the organization has not yet been launched, there are issues with WP:FUTURE as well. Inks.LWC (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete- too soon, and thus fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:07, 17 July 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.