Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth for Equality


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Youth for Equality

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Pretty much an open and shut case that this never got third-party coverage and is not notable. Searches and current links are nothing but social media and other self-generated material. It's worth noting it was been somewhat heavily edited since May 23, 2006 but always had primary sources and no third-party. SwisterTwister  talk  23:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 03:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 03:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, not enough third-party coverage. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. While the sourcing of the article as it stands looks likely not to be reliable by our standards, what I am seeing of the GNews (and to a lesser extent GBooks) results seems to contain quite a number of third-party sources, some substantial, some reliable and some quite possibly both (though I am not familiar enough with the status of any but the most visible Indian news sources to be certain of the last). The organisation still seems to exist (though probably on a smaller scale than around 2006), and there is also some verifiable controversy about the existence and extent of past connections between Arvind Kejriwal and this organisation. In brief, I suspect this is notable, but need to leave it to others to determine one way or the other. PWilkinson (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete per lack of apparent notability, though PWilkinson's comment was interesting, hence the weak delete. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 23:39, 28 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.