274:- My article 'Youth United' is listed under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. I have gone through the details for this and I found that the answer to the question why its subject is important or significant, is implied by the full article, particularly, headings of philosophy, vision, and mission statement really imply the answer to the same question. Youth United is a registered Non Governmental Organization, as Rotary International or Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The only difference is that they are quite reputed and old. Youth United solely works for the betterment of Society and Youth and it does not have any profit making motive as per its Constitution. Moreover everything was written from a neutral perspective. Had it not been the case, everything about the past events, activities and tabloids would have been flooded in the article. It was avoided to make the article as neutral as possible. Everything written was written to make the article informative and inform the general mass about Youth United and its missions and objectives which in turn have absolute nature of Community welfare. This article is to propagate the mission statement of Youth United and not the Youth United itself. If required I can send you the official charter and bye laws of Youth United. However you can also let me know as what all should be incorporated in the article to make it agreeable to wikipedia policies.
509:- I am unable to understand the subtleties of the notability of this organization. The notability is quite an abstract issue. One issue may be notable to you and one may not. You can not prove the non notability of any entity just by saying that the corresponding wikipedia article does not have third party sources. At least the article Youth United has a lot of sources referenced from its official website, and in many a cases, excluding or including wikipedia, official website is taken as the official and authentic reference. regarding the Google search thing please refer in
515:. I am aware of this policy , but it does not mean that these articles are still to be overlooked after having noticed. This is a registered NGO having certified charter and bye-laws. The offical website cites these information only and challenging the authenticity of a certified charter is uncalled for. This matter is quite irrelevant for wikipedia administrators that what are the goals and activities of Youth United.I request you to take the matter more seriously, so that we may finally reach to a valid conclusion and hence close the discussion. sincerely.
423:( or similar hundreds or thousands of articles) having no sources at all. These are just similar organizations found alone from the list of Youth Organizations. I believe wikipedia policies are meant for all kinds of organizations be it any NGO from India or US. So with all respect, I would still request you to follow one standard to tackle one kind of situation and close this discussion, in regard of my earlier request.
60:
31:
311:. So in this regard, I request you to close the discussion and approve this article, with some reservations and liabilities that it will list more third party sources in near future. However organization's official website may be taken as the official source for the time being as in the case of few articles like
289:
to understand why this article is being nominated for deletion. Your organization is non-notable i.e. it is not peer-reviewed by notable third party sources, nor does it feature in print media. Being a registered organization is not a criteria for inclusion in wikipedia. If you say that google search
278:
Searching the NGO on google is quite a speculative thing to do, especially when the organization is listed in India. It takes years for a name to come on google and not to mention this organization is quite a new organization. I have gone through the policies of wikipedia in this regard, it does not
308:
sources will be incorporated as soon as possible and for the time being this article may be approved as this article does not violate any other policy of wikipedia. However there are certain articles which does not cite the source from third party sources and still not having any problem. e.g.
307:
I understand your concern. But you may like to consider the fact that this organization is a very new organization and finding third party sources for this is somewhat difficult so early. However there are some print media sources that I may be able to produce to you. Nonetheless, third party
279:
bar any one to write an article for a new organization. it also maintains neutrality and above all it just propagates the message which is in accordance with
Society welfare and not any profit motive. really soliciting your cooperation,
194:. Basically the search results still relevant are only two, that too of their own site. Also the article is sort of a copy vio of their own website (not an exact copy though).
251:
180:
209:- Well I didn't notice it earlier, but after I had tagged the page as prod, someone put a speedy A7 tag on it. Apparently, the creator has removed both prod and speedy tags.
290:
it not enough, I'd suggest you bring forward notable third party sources (i.e. links, most notable indian newspapers have websites) to show that you ARE notable.
490:- no reliable sources to establish notability. That's all there is to it. The worthiness of the goals and activities of the organisiation are irrelevant. --
538:, and hence contesting the nomination of Youth United article for AFD. I also request you to be flexible and make the best use of wikipedia liberal policies.
40:
69:
192:
668:
442:
335:
561:, the way you can save this article from deletion is to provide reliable sources to establish the notability of the organisation.
147:
142:
151:
17:
364:
by
Knowledge's standards, no matter how lofty its subject's goals. In its current state, the article could be considered not
397:
134:
576:
463:
650:
385:
381:
94:
75:
46:
649:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
627:
291:
258:
210:
195:
93:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
223:- non-notable org. This is a multiply-recreated article, the newest version by an S.P.A. of the classic type:
632:
580:
547:
543:
524:
520:
499:
480:
446:
438:
401:
339:
331:
296:
263:
239:
215:
200:
116:
564:
558:
510:
475:
430:
323:
234:
598:
tells us to see the quality, not quantity, of the links. I used the google search to indicate that
393:
138:
87:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
539:
516:
434:
327:
469:
228:
191:. Non notable organization, I did a google search on pages from India regarding this NGO,
602:
found nothing to make your article notable. Hence I put this article up for AfD, so that
376:(depending on its author's relationship to the subject). The article is unquestionably
572:
495:
365:
107:
662:
623:
595:
377:
373:
369:
286:
188:
389:
357:
130:
122:
535:
415:
168:
459:
361:
353:
606:
could provide third party sources which I might have missed, since google is
568:
491:
418:
408:
In that case I would like you to clear the position of these articles
384:, discussed with the deleting admin, and failing in that, posted to
409:
314:, where the sources are primarily taken from the official website.
458:- If the organization is new, that may explain why it is not yet
643:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
54:
25:
618:- A policy is a policy, if they are relaxed for one article,
468:
is not a valid argument for the retention of this article. --
421:
412:
309:
175:
164:
160:
156:
312:
285:
Firstly, this is not CSD. Familiarize yourself with
97:). No further edits should be made to this page.
252:list of Organizations-related deletion discussions
225:It's such a worthy ideal, it's sure to become big.
653:). No further edits should be made to this page.
465:other articles out there aren't very good either
8:
388:, rather than recreating the article.  —
610:perfect. So far you haven't provided any.
250:: This debate has been included in the
352:. Unless the article is improved with
74:For an explanation of the process, see
45:For an explanation of the process, see
317:Your cooperation is really solicited,
7:
360:, its subject cannot be considered
189:WP:ORG#Non-commercial organizations
380:- its author should have followed
24:
378:a recreation of deleted material
58:
29:
41:deletion review on 2009 June 23
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
187:Contested Prod. Article fails
70:deletion review on 2009 July 1
1:
633:08:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
581:21:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
548:21:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
525:20:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
500:20:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
481:00:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
447:21:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
402:20:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
340:20:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
297:18:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
264:18:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
240:18:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
216:17:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
201:17:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
620:there goes the neighbourhood
685:
534:I request you to consider
462:. Please note, also, that
594:- Firstly the example in
386:Knowledge:Deletion review
382:Knowledge:Deletion policy
117:16:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
76:Knowledge:Deletion review
47:Knowledge:Deletion review
669:Pages at deletion review
646:Please do not modify it.
622:. Also consider reading
90:Please do not modify it.
592:Concern 1 - Google Test
616:Concern 2 - Notability
374:copyright violation
596:WP:ATA#Google test
583:
567:comment added by
449:
433:comment added by
356:information from
342:
326:comment added by
272:the justification
266:
255:
82:
81:
68:was subject to a
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
676:
648:
630:
562:
478:
472:
428:
358:reliable sources
321:
294:
261:
256:
246:
237:
231:
213:
198:
178:
172:
154:
114:
92:
62:
61:
55:
33:
32:
26:
684:
683:
679:
678:
677:
675:
674:
673:
659:
658:
657:
651:deletion review
644:
628:
476:
470:
350:Delete and salt
292:
259:
235:
229:
221:Delete and salt
211:
196:
174:
145:
129:
126:
108:
102:The result was
95:deletion review
88:
66:This discussion
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
682:
680:
672:
671:
661:
660:
656:
655:
638:
636:
635:
612:
611:
589:
584:
551:
550:
528:
527:
503:
502:
485:
484:
483:
425:
424:
405:
404:
346:
345:
344:
343:
318:
315:
302:
301:
300:
299:
276:
275:
268:
267:
243:
242:
218:
185:
184:
125:
120:
100:
99:
83:
80:
79:
73:
63:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
681:
670:
667:
666:
664:
654:
652:
647:
641:
640:
639:
634:
631:
625:
621:
617:
614:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
593:
590:
588:
585:
582:
578:
574:
570:
566:
560:
559:WP:Notability
556:
553:
552:
549:
545:
541:
537:
533:
530:
529:
526:
522:
518:
514:
513:
508:
505:
504:
501:
497:
493:
489:
486:
482:
479:
473:
467:
466:
461:
457:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
422:
419:
416:
413:
410:
407:
406:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
348:
347:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
319:
316:
313:
310:
306:
305:
304:
303:
298:
295:
288:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
273:
270:
269:
265:
262:
253:
249:
245:
244:
241:
238:
232:
226:
222:
219:
217:
214:
208:
205:
204:
203:
202:
199:
193:
190:
182:
177:
170:
166:
162:
158:
153:
149:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
127:
124:
121:
119:
118:
115:
113:
112:
105:
98:
96:
91:
85:
84:
77:
71:
67:
64:
57:
56:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
645:
642:
637:
619:
615:
607:
603:
599:
591:
586:
554:
531:
511:
506:
487:
464:
455:
427:Sincerely,
426:
349:
277:
271:
247:
224:
220:
206:
186:
131:Youth United
123:Youth United
110:
109:
103:
101:
89:
86:
65:
36:
563:—Preceding
540:Extolmonica
532:the request
517:Extolmonica
471:Orange Mike
435:Extolmonica
429:—Preceding
370:promotional
368:and either
328:Extolmonica
322:—Preceding
230:Orange Mike
456:responses'
354:verifiable
320:Regards,
557:- As per
111:Wizardman
663:Category
577:contribs
565:unsigned
507:response
443:contribs
431:unsigned
398:contribs
336:contribs
324:unsigned
181:View log
460:notable
390:Jeff G.
366:neutral
362:notable
207:Comment
148:protect
143:history
624:WP:NOT
488:Delete
287:WP:ORG
176:delete
152:delete
104:delete
587:Reply
555:Reply
372:or a
179:) – (
169:views
161:watch
157:links
16:<
629:Welt
573:talk
569:Whpq
544:talk
536:this
521:talk
512:here
496:talk
492:Whpq
477:Talk
439:talk
394:talk
332:talk
293:Welt
260:Welt
248:Note
236:Talk
212:Welt
197:Welt
165:logs
139:talk
135:edit
608:not
604:you
420:,
254:.
665::
579:)
575:•
546:)
523:)
498:)
474:|
445:)
441:•
414:,
411:,
400:)
338:)
334:•
233:|
227:--
167:|
163:|
159:|
155:|
150:|
146:|
141:|
137:|
106:.
72:.
43:.
626:.
600:I
571:(
542:(
519:(
494:(
437:(
417:,
396:|
392:(
330:(
257:—
183:)
173:(
171:)
133:(
78:.
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.