Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supporting Our Youth

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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting Our Youth

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A group of programs run by a health center whose article was just deleted. Sourced nearly completely to SOY website. Deletion suggested here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_January_8#Sherbourne_Health_Centre by editor that did not know how to nominate it. Legacypac (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I only found one independent news source (Toronto Life), and it was published two days ago. This doesn't warrant an article until such time as it has more breadth of coverage in the media. Mind matrix 15:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat's updates. Mind matrix 21:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely a poorly written and primary-sourced article in its current state. To be fair, it was written in 2006, a time when our sourcing rules actually did not preclude primary sourcing anywhere near as strictly as they do now — any source at all which verified the content, even if it was a primary one, was once perfectly acceptable. However, a ProQuest search confirmed that it actually does have the level of RS coverage needed to clear the bar under the current standards: it gets hits dating all the way back to 1998 in "Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies". Keep; I'll take a stab at cleaning it up. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've rewritten the article to a more encyclopedic and less advertorial format, and entirely overhauled the sourcing — so it's now in a much more keepable state than it was half an hour ago. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the additional information and sources that have been added here, though I wish there were more articles cited outside of the Toronto Star. 和DITOR E tails 00:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.