Deletion of Planet Youth

Comment: based on these two articles, which do provide external reliable sources. (Although tomasz was correct that the article linked in your earlier comment merely ''mentioned'' Planet Youth, it wasn't ''about'' Planet Youth.) Also, please remember to |assume good faith regarding your fellow editors
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: Seems to me that's a |surmountable problem and not a reason for deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:PROBLEM)

Comment: These still aren't |reliable secondary sources, though. It basically needs to have been written about by a third party to substantiate its notability. Regarding the UK-centrism issue: i, the nominator, am from the UK, and indeed from the North of England, where this is located, and i haven't heard of it either. Not, like
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: It's not a question of who wrote the article. "There are other articles on Wikipedia on subjects of questionable notability" is generally not a valid argument for articles to be kept--see . (Especially when they are very different types--an athlete is hardly comparable to a youth group.) Also "arbitrary standards should not be used" is not the same as "no standards at all should be applied."  Requiring a reliable source about an article's subject is a standard, but not an arbitrary one. Show me a |reliable source about the group (for example, a newspaper article) and I'll happily change my recommendation to keep
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:RS)