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. (non-admin closure) Swarm ^X 20:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Young Conservatives of Texas[edit]

Young Conservatives of Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

State organization, little-or-no independent sourcing given, and no sourcing given to establish notability. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Week Keep - The current article does have a lot of problems... but I think it can probably be fixed with a rewrite... the organization gets a fair number of [google news hits], but most of them are no more than passing references. I think it is a toss up as to whether the org is a notable enough topic for a stand alone article. In short, there may be an article here... but it's boarderline and it's not the one we currently have. Blueboar (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE: I had this article deleted several months ago and recreated it to include more cites, however the same text has appeared again. This was the second time the article was deleted and I feel that it should be deleted again.Theseus1776 (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete — I am far from convinced of the supposed notability. Most of it strongest cases appear to stem from the membership of people elected to various roles. I consider that insufficient. A F K When Needed 16:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I favor a low notability standard for political parties and their youth sections regardless of ideology. That this is not a universally-held opinion is a pity because it has already lead to the elimination of useful encyclopedic information for no good reason. This is not a political party, of course, but it's close enough for rock and roll — an organization of political co-thinkers that has been in existence for over three decades. This is a de facto youth section of the Republican Party in Texas, with campus chapters around the state, including BAYLOR, TEXAS A&M, and TEXAS TECH, among others. Basically: the state-level Republican youth organization. No, I'm not a conservative, or a Republican, and I don't play one on TV — but this sort of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT exercise needs to stop. Leave valid content about political organizations alone. It belongs in an encyclopedia. Period. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - WikiProject Texas still needs to be notified of this deletion nomination. Carrite (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This organization was mentioned in this book from 2004 which quotes a news article about them from 2003. Here's another book. And here's one which has the group protesting a speech by Clinton. The YCT is called "heartless, greedy, anti-intellectual little fascists"... pretty exciting prose. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I was just reading Rand Paul's book the other day and he mentioned YCT. It seems fairly notable, although I agree the article needs a lot of work. –CWenger (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - given the sources available, that have yet to be added to the article, there have been multiple references from reliable sources that are independent of the subject to the group that are widespread (local, regional, and national). Furthermore, with the large number of mentions, in news, books, and scholarly sources, if added all together, they maybe considered fulfilling significant coverage. Therefore, the subject of this article clearly, passes WP:GNG, and even though the article needs to be improved to increase its quality, it should be kept as it is notable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Perry and Paul, seems to have a pretty substantial following. - Haymaker (talk)

• Weak keep - General notability seems evident; article deficiencies aren't in themselves rationale for deletion. I would recommend keeping watchful eyes for neutrality and coats. / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the in-article sourcing is terrible, and the article needs some additional work, but there's more than enough reliable sourcing out there to meet GNG, a quick scan of Gbooks/Gnews seems clear enough. --joe decker^{talk to me} 02:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Carrite. All this article needs is a really cool nav box and it'll be ready for GA review. Lionel (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Seriously? Jenks24 (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep': The article needs to be fleshed out a bit and better sourcing wouldn't hurt, but it certainly is notable enough to pass muster. This isn't someone trying to get their garage band some publicity by creating a Wikipedia article. This is a statewide organization that has been in existance for more than 30 years. Improvement certainly, but by no means would I recommend a delete.SeanNovack (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Are people looking at the same article I am? GA with 0 reliable sources? This article, in its current state clearly fails the general notability guidelines as there are no reliable sources that support the claim to notability. I agree with Carrite that there should be a very low bar in this case, and so I'm not !voting for delete. However I would strongly urge those in favor of keeping the article to either get some cites into the article, find some policy grounds to support their positions, or to make it clear they are voting IAR/think policy should be changed. Pretending this article meets the GNG is not helpful. Monty₈₄₅ 06:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google news archive search shows 656 results. This group gets media coverage, and they include their representatives in political discussions. Dream Focus 08:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Although notability has not been well-established, the article's content appears largely encyclopedic. Of course, with most articles concerning political organizations on Wikipedia, questions of NPOV must be raised. But I would like to see the incorporation of reliable third-party sources such as the following: NY Times article mentioning YCT at Texas A&M. FitzColinGerald (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This article needs work..not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete as the organization has almost certainly drawn media coverage over the years for their many claimed stunts but with none of those sources in the article, it's impossible for a reader to determine what of this article is factual. Fails the verifiability threshold, the only one more important that notability. If kept, it needs to be gutted, re-written, and properly sourced. - Dravecky (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So what is wrong with tagging for sources? This is the typical way that sourcing issues are addressed... Why are we leaping straight to annihilation of the article here? Carrite (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Young Conservatives of Texas produces STATE LEGISLATOR RATINGS which are cited by Project Vote Smart. In addition to the three chapters cited above, they also have chapters at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, AUSTIN and STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE COLLEGE, at a minimum... Carrite (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be NUMEROUS ARTICLES on the group's activities which have been published by the Austin American-Statesman (paywalled). Carrite (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's 109 MORE HITS on the exact phrase "Young Conservatives of Texas" from the Dallas Morning News... (again, paywalled). Carrite (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you can find out-of-state coverage -- local coverage doesn't establish notability nearly as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The state of Texas is plenty big enough, Wikipedia is not an index of stories in Time magazine. There seem to be a truly massive number of news stories relating to this group's activities — albeit paywalled. Improve, don't delete. Carrite (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Another fuckin' paywall at the San Antonio News Express, but again copious news hits from the archive on "Young Conservatives of Texas," including this lead:

"6.) Flap over bill illustrates need for communication

Author: Scott Stroud Section: Metro and State News Publish Date: January 28, 2011 Word Count: 545 Document ID: 1350E1497363BF18 AUSTIN - The Young Conservatives of Texas have tagged a bill by Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon to designate April Minority Cancer Awareness Month as one of the worst under-the-radar bills filed so far in the 2011 legislative session.

They didn't know she has stage 4 lung cancer...."

Ouch. Still, there's no way that it can reasonably be claimed that this is some obscure organization which has not been featured in independent, third-party news coverage. Tag and flag all you want, but there is no way this should have been brought up for deletion... An obvious KEEP. Carrite (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Mainly on notability from having members become Congressmen and a Senator. Makes NYT at [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and more. NYT is sufficient on its own to meet any notability requirements. Collect (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs more work, including some more reliable inline citations, but sufficiently described to be kept and improved. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It needs a lot of work, but the notability is there. Perhaps this is a job for WikiProject Conservatism. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks like they've gotten a lot of coverage, AFD shouldn't be used for article that just need cleanup. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly how I feel about this. Looks like somebody jumped the gun on an AfD when some cite tags would have been far more appropriate. SeanNovack (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I support a relatively low bar for notability on political organizations, but I don't think the tactic of plugging the group's name into Google News or whatever is that useful in these types of cases. I'm reminded of the fairly recent AfD on Focus on the Family Canada, where a number of links to articles were provided, but many were just brief quotations of what the group's spokesperson thought on an issue. These types of links aren't really helpful here - it seems awkward and artificial to just plug into the middle of the article "Young Conservatives of Texas supported House Bill 123". Since it's clear that this AfD is heading for a "Keep", can we improve the article by looking for sources about the organization itself and its influence, (and not just sources that mention it in passing) and actually incorporating these sources into the article (which hasn't happened yet)? Kansan (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • • The New York Times meets a much higher bar than just "Google" in point of fact. And a whole slew of cites therein. Collect (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • For example, the third New York Times link just says they endorsed a particular candidate... which is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Quality, not quantity. Kansan (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • • And the one which has The Campus Coalition for Peace and Justice has had a couple of antiwar rallies here, and university campuses always have more antiwar feeling than America in general," said Austin Kinghorn, public affairs director of the Young Conservatives of Texas. "But I think a lot of students here are still unsure. We're going to set up a debate with the coalition people, and I think that will get a huge turnout." is chopped liver? Sorry -- pointing out that one of many links "only" describes an endorsement is not a strong argument to ignore the other links. Collect (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not calling for deletion or anything like that - I'm only stating that, as it appears this article is clearly going to be kept, it's time to start incorporating some of the myriad links that have been presented, and that we should focus on some of the more useful links instead of just linking to anything that vaguely mentions them. Kansan (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, yes, that is chopped liver. Quoting an organization's spokesman does not indicate notability of the organization. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously a notable group. Tentontunic (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep More work, less talk. Google News sources are numerous; I have to admit I was surprised, but there are Google Books cites also. Also Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Democrats of North Carolina and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles County Young Democrats Anarchangel (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not something that can't be fixed. I see no good reason for deletion. It's a legitimate 26 year old organization with a history.

jjrj24 (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Needs work, but no reason to delete. Mark Shaw (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This organization is old enough and active enough for inclusion. Perhaps more work is needed, but there is no reason to delete. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2011 (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.