Deletion of Ten Outstanding Young Persons of the World

Comment: the List article, '''Merge''' the award article to Junior Chamber International (the organisation that sponsors the award).  Both of the nominated articles could use some better sourcing, but so too does the article on the sponsor.  And that's going to be a problem, because a great many specialised organisations find it difficult to get coverage in the mainstream press.  Nonetheless, it is possible for us to take "encyclopedic" notice of the fact that the JC International was formed more than a century ago and that many (most? all?) of the milestones in its development probably happened before the Internet era.  Because of this, I'm not too troubled with having much of the target article's sourcing come from the organisation's own websites.  And merging in the discussion of one of its major annual projects (the award) will be of benefit to the target article.  As for the list article, it's easily justifiable as a stand-alone article per .By way of comparison, the only national member of the JC International to have its own article is the United States Junior Chamber.  They, too, have an annual award (the Ten Outstanding Young Americans) and an accompanying list article for the honorees (List of Ten Outstanding Young Americans).  And all of these U.S. articles suffer the same lack of third-party sourcing.  Of course, pointing to "other stuff" isn't a compelling argument in a deletion nomination.  But I think we can all step back for a minute and ask ourselves whether the level of sourcing needed to keep a set of Junior Chamber articles really depends on whether we're talking about the organisation that is based in the U.S. or the one that is based in Hong Kong.In all, I think the merger of the award article into the organisation's article will be an improvement in the coverage of the topic.  Indeed, the same approach should probably be taken for the U.S. articles, as well
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SPINOUT)