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 speedy keep. Deletion rationale has been shown to be wrong, no delete !votes (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 07:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Opportunities Programme

[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. I am unable to find significant coverage of this programme in third party sources. Onthegogo (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep As notable. Remember that this was pre-internet! It most certainly was a major national government programme. Google books has a long list of titles of official publications and reports dealing with it and a book by Clare Short criticising it. A useful summary is here. The article needs expansion and proper sources, but that is not a ground for deletion. AJHingston (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering what all those (given the period, printed) sources which ((find sources)) turns up discussing the YOP, its origins, its workings, and its effectiveness, or rather lack of same, and its unlamented demise are if not "significant coverage". Dead tree newspaper archives will no doubt contain much more material. Clearly needs expansion, but what article doesn't? So that'll be a keep then. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google Books search returns several relevant results. The article needs work, but sources are available. BurtAlert (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do you have a specific example of a relevant source that you might be shared with the rest of us? Onthegogo (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Search "Youth Opportunities Programme" in Google. Here are some results that seem particularly useful: [1] [2] [3] [4] BurtAlert (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddy (ed), In Place of Work (1983) seems likely to be useful, especially Loney's "The Youth Opportunities Programme" [5]. Also relevant material in Fiddy's Youth, unemployment and training (1985) given that the YOP seems to be the baseline with which other programmes are compared and contrasted. [6] But frankly there are pages and pages of related material on Google books and Google scholar. Some obvious examples from Scholar which specifically address the YOP: "The impact of the Youth Opportunities Programme on young people's employment prospects and psychological well-being"; "School-leaver unemployment and the Youth Opportunities Programme in Scotland"; "Client Responses to the Youth Opportunities Programme"; "Education, Employment and the Youth Opportunities Programme: some sociological perspectives". As for the usefulness of Google News Archive, unsurprisingly that is low to zero for the relevant period. Google would have us believe that the Guardian never mentioned the phrase. An unlikely story. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such as this, this or this. Agree with Angus. (And note also Wiktionary's "yopper".) Keep AllyD (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AJHingston PWilkinson (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously worthy of inclusion.--Michig (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - once notable, notable indefinitely. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 29 March 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.