Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Energy Summit!


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Youth Energy Summit!

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Local project with local references. No indication of doing anything that would amount to real notability.  DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete dubious notability, references are linked to the local area, which per WP:GNG needs more than that for an article. Secret account 03:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Humm, I'm not really seeing anything in the GNG which supports the idea that local references aren't acceptable. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete First, I would like to note that there is no subject specific notability guideline that covers an organization like the Youth energy summit. While Notability (organizations and companies) is the most applicable, outside of the general notability guideline, it refers to companies/organizations of a larger and smaller scale than Youth Energy Summit.  Youth Energy Summit is similar to a high school sports organization, or Knowledge Bowl in Minnesota in that it is less of an organization and more an association of teams.  I don't know if there should or should not be a separate notability guideline for organizations, but that isn't what we are here to decide.  We need to base this decision on the guidelines we currently have set in place.  The individual Youth Energy Summit teams receive a rather wide amount of local news coverage, particularly by the Marshall Independent8 articles and the Sleepy Eye Herald Dispatch 4 relevant articles.  Other teams receive mentions in local newspapers as well.  There weren't many mentions of the project as a whole.  One of the best I could find was this article in the Worthington Daily Globe.  The Daily Globe is slightly larger than some of the other sources; however, I don't know that you could say it is regional.  In addition, I have some concerns with the article in that it isn't incredibly in depth and reads slightly promotional.  If an article was written on the organization in a newspaper like the Star Tribune, there might be a case for notability.  In the end, I believe an article on the Youth Energy Summit could be notable in the future, but doesn't currently meet our requirements.  That being said, WP:GROUP does allow for mentions in other related articles.  Specifically, if an article existed on Sprinfield High School, it could be mentioned that the school has a Youth Energy Summit team that created a video that was a finalist in the Samsung "Solve for Tomorrow" competition. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  05:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and Expand A quick Google found Youth Energy Summit (YES) groups in Rochester, NY, Sacramento, CA and Asia as well as the Minnesota program described in this short article.  Less ambitious YES activities are mentioned here and there.  It appears that at least the Sacramento and Asia YES groups have substantial independent coverage. DocTree (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Doctree, I found information about the Sacramento and Asia groups, and think I have even seen some in Germany; however, it's a case of same name different organization. This article is about the Minnesota Youth Energy Summit.  It isn't affiliated with those other organizations. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  18:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep reliable sources in the article cause the topic to meet the GNG. The fact that these are smaller papers or whatever isn't relevant to the GNG.  With no clear SNG to override, this article meets our inclusion guidelines.  Further, given that the subject is verifiable and encyclopedic, it improves Wikipedia to have an article--why delete it? Hobit (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Coverage by some small time local non-notable newspapers is hardly indicative that it's a truly notable topic. It hasn't gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you point to a guideline or the like that supports this view? Otherwise it feels a lot like WP:JNN.  Hobit (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." (emphasis added) found in Notability (organizations and companies). Ryan Vesey Review me!  23:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was quoting the nutshell of notability WP:N. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep It looks to me like an extremely strict interpretation of notability is being called for by some. It's well-sourced, and has been improved recently. I agree with Hobit here. There are cases where I think keeping an article lowers the quality of the encyclopedia but this doesn't look like one of them. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG, based on sources in article, those above and now also, , . -- Trevj (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Source one is a press release, source two only mentions that organization in one sentence and it's a local general interest story by a very small town newspaper, source three is a passing mention. None of them are indications that it meets WP:GNG Secret account 19:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete local kids' club, while I'm sure it's fun it's no more notable than, say, a school band or the local scout troop would be. Just like school clubs and scout troops, there's going to be local coverage but it's still well out of scope for an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Scope? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. From what I've read, it's state-wide, so is noted over a much wider area than, say, a school band or the local scout troop. -- Trevj (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – the topic passes WP:GNG, per, , , . Northamerica1000(talk) 17:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Source 4 is arguably a press release which isn't independent of the subject, source six main topic is about some state program called "Adopt-a-River" that one local branch of the group is doing, obviously a trivial source, and source seven talks about an individual branch of the program, and about the program in general. The only source that is kinda valid is source five, but one local source isn't enough for what is required in WP:GNG Secret account 03:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The crux of the AfD appears then to be whether the nutshell of notability is correct. Yes there are small time local newspaper sources for the article, but this isn't a topic that has gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large. Notability through local newspapers would essentially extend the scope of notability to almost everyone. For example, local newspapers cover local people in local areas all the time. By a careful collecting of local newspaper sources almost anyone and anything could be deemed "worthy of note": does this align with the goals of wikipedia being an encyclopedic reference? This doesn't appear to align with current interpretations of notability by the majority of wikipedians. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. -- Trevj (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You've mentioned that twice, but I don't think you've actually read it. WP:PAPER doesn't mean that Wikipedia covers everything, and it even specifically says so: "...this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars".  A much more relevant guideline would be WP:ORG, which this topic doesn't pass. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've struck it out the 2nd time. Sorry. I'm not saying it's a free pass for inclusion, more that I believe it meets GNG. And I don't believe that the scope of notability would be extended to almost everyone, with reference to local newspaper sources. -- Trevj (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Expand The world at large concept of notability is not policy. For example, featured articles this month include Ganoga Lake; Uncle Tupelo; Hygeberht and Dendrocollybia.  These are all niche topics which the world at large does not know or care about.  The current FA, Ganoga Lake, seems quite comparable as this is a feature of local interest and the detailed sources were all published locally.  If the world at large doctrine were taken seriously then few topics would be safe.  What actually happens is that such phrases are quoted selectively to delete topics which editors don't like.  I don't particularly like this topic either but it's hard to see why we should delete it when we have all those other minutiae.  My personal view is that a seriously pragmatic test of notability would be the existence of a book about the topic.  Anything less than a full book would mean merger into a more general article.  In this case, this would mean that the appropriate level of coverage would be Energy in Minnesota &mdash; a putative article comparable with Energy in the United Kingdom.  There are books which cover the topic at this level in various ways and a history of activism documented in detail in works such as Powerline: The First Battle of America's Energy War.  Our editing policy tells us that we should grow such seedlings to the appropriate size rather than stamping on them. Warden (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The article you highlight Ganoga Lake has a number of reliable sources that demonstrate notability, including about 10 books. Not comparable. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As seen from the other side of the Atlantic, that topic is amusingly parochial, "While on a hunting trip north of the lake in 1850, brothers Elijah and Clemuel Ricketts were frustrated at having to spend the night on a hotel's parlor floor.". The point is that the world at large test is not policy.  The relevant policy tells us to "improve pages wherever you can".  I have suggested a way forward and so deletion is not appropriate. Warden (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as of strictly local interest. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2012 (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.