Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Challenge International Canada


 * 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 - fails WP:ORG. Krakatoa Katie  05:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Youth Challenge International Canada

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable organization, makes no claim to notability whatsoever. Unsourced. Reads like an advertisement. Only link is to official web site. Unable to locate any secondary sources on the organization. Less than two pages of Ghits. Fails WP:ORG. Despite all this, was previously declined speedy because admin felt we should try to "help article," so I'm bringing it here for consensus. Redfarmer (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Comment The listing from the Canadian International Development Agency, which I've added as an External link, is a secondary source, is it not? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  00:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  00:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a basic government listing with contact info and a short bio. I don't think that would count as a secondary source to establish notoriety. I don't know about Canada, but in the states we have all kinds of non-profits which are listed on government web sites and are, in no way, notable. Redfarmer (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, we're not trying to establish notoriety, surely. I don't know about the US, but I do know Canada and if CIDA lists you as an accredited organization, you're legit. Or at least there's no reasonable basis to assume otherwise. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ORG, an organization must be notable in order to warrant its own article. Just being legit does not meet the guidelines. Notoriety is established through media reports such as newspaper and magazine articles, etc. and other secondary sources. Redfarmer (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It's notability we're trying to establish here, Redfarmer, not notoriety. (I certainly hope this non-profit organization isn't going to end up being notorious). At any rate, I also added a link from La Francophonie, the international body for all French-speaking nations. This appears to be an notable international youth aid agency, IMO. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you quote a secondary source to the article per WP:REF? I don't speak French but the new page appears to be another directory listing, which does not qualify as a secondary source. Redfarmer (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I converted the CIDA link to an in-line citation and have also tagged the article as too promotional in tone. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you to quote a secondary source for me, though. If you can find a secondary source which establishes the notability of the organization per WP:ORG, I will withdraw the nomination. Directory listings do not count as secondary sources. I cannot find such a source. Redfarmer (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've posted about all I can find. I'm not sure I would describe the CIDA Web page as a mere directory listing, though. CIDA has listed them (and they have flagged CIDA on their home page) because they're being funded and supported by CIDA. So in my mind, at least, that denotes a certain level of notability and significance. But no, I've found nothing that's going make you want to pull the AfD, I suspect, and your viewpoint may well prevail. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is, even if I grant that those articles are not akin to a directory listing, you admitted that both organizations give funding to this organization, which, to me, makes it more like a primary source than a secondary source since the CIDA and the La Francophonie are associated with this organization. Redfarmer (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know that La Francophonie gave them anything, but CIDA did. For you, that makes it a mere primary source -- I get that. But for me, it means that the Canadian government has seen fit to support this charitable international youth organization -- which it wouldn't have done unless they were up to something socially noteworthy and important, per WP:ORG.Shawn in Montreal (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Article describes what the organization does but doesn't state notability. --Kannie | talk 02:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, a worthy cause to be sure, but not notable. No secondary sources that assert notability.  Lankiveil (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I'm sure there are many thousands of equally worthy organizations and charities that receive government funding throughout the world; we need evidence of why this particular good cause is notable, in the form of non-trivial references from reliable secondary sources (a newspaper article would be a good start), but none have, as yet, been provided. Tevildo (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no indication that this is a large group or that it has generated any significant media coverage.  RJC Talk 00:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per RJC. GreenJoe (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It is a non-notable organization. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:10, 17 January 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.