Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Hindu Human Rights: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:32, 15 September 2021 editTrangaBellam (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,563 edits R*2Tag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit Revision as of 22:10, 15 September 2021 edit undoToshi2k2 (talk | contribs)76 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 13: Line 13:
*It appears unwarranted to target this page for deletion. It doesn't seem to be violating any clauses and ] is certainly met as compared with other organisations on wiki since HHR is a distinct and unique organization with significant number of anti-Hinduphobia events held under their guidance and a significant social media presence. I would raise a point towards probable malicious targeting of the page here since equally or even lesser known organizations seem to have wiki pages without any deletion discussions on them. e.g. ], ], ], ], etc. The last one, for example, is a university student organisation. It's very unnerving to see that there is no deletion discussion for a wiki page of a small college student organisation but is there for an international human rights organisation. I'd suggest the wiki community should do much more against such biased discussions which waste the time of contributors. ] (]) 19:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC) *It appears unwarranted to target this page for deletion. It doesn't seem to be violating any clauses and ] is certainly met as compared with other organisations on wiki since HHR is a distinct and unique organization with significant number of anti-Hinduphobia events held under their guidance and a significant social media presence. I would raise a point towards probable malicious targeting of the page here since equally or even lesser known organizations seem to have wiki pages without any deletion discussions on them. e.g. ], ], ], ], etc. The last one, for example, is a university student organisation. It's very unnerving to see that there is no deletion discussion for a wiki page of a small college student organisation but is there for an international human rights organisation. I'd suggest the wiki community should do much more against such biased discussions which waste the time of contributors. ] (]) 19:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
:*Notwithstanding your inability to read ] (the criteria is {{tq|'''significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources'''}}), you might like ]. ] (]) 19:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC) :*Notwithstanding your inability to read ] (the criteria is {{tq|'''significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources'''}}), you might like ]. ] (]) 19:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
::*Notwithstanding your inability to read my comment in its entirety, I mention ''..as compared with other organisations on wiki..''. Additionally, ] mentions - ''While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this...''. The article appears to consist of independent, reliable citations ('''BBC News, Times of India, The Hindu''') to news reports/articles which point to some of the HHR activities and demonstrations which should be apt (alongwith the comparative argument) for the article to exist. Despite this, even if you continue to argue using the notability clause, the article seems to be still covered under ] and ]. A better use of space and time would be improving the article and making it more comprehensive. e.g. adding details regarding founding, membership, structure, etc. ] (]) 20:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:10, 15 September 2021

Hindu Human Rights

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Hindu Human Rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NORG is not met. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Hindu Human Rights is the oldest standing Human Rights organisation for Hindus in the UK and one of the first outside India in the world. It is a notable organisation and it should not be deleted. It is also problematic in the context of a competing, far newer group from the USA who are aggressively using a very similar name and have gone so far as to claim the knowledge panel at google with their own account. This is a maliciously motivated attempt to silence Hindu Human Rights. Jnanashuddhi (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • It appears unwarranted to target this page for deletion. It doesn't seem to be violating any clauses and WP:NORG is certainly met as compared with other organisations on wiki since HHR is a distinct and unique organization with significant number of anti-Hinduphobia events held under their guidance and a significant social media presence. I would raise a point towards probable malicious targeting of the page here since equally or even lesser known organizations seem to have wiki pages without any deletion discussions on them. e.g. Labour Muslim Network, Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council, Council on Islamic Education, Muslim Student Union of the University of California, Irvine, etc. The last one, for example, is a university student organisation. It's very unnerving to see that there is no deletion discussion for a wiki page of a small college student organisation but is there for an international human rights organisation. I'd suggest the wiki community should do much more against such biased discussions which waste the time of contributors. Toshi2k2 (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Notwithstanding your inability to read my comment in its entirety, I mention ..as compared with other organisations on wiki... Additionally, WP:WHATABOUTX mentions - While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this.... The article appears to consist of independent, reliable citations (BBC News, Times of India, The Hindu) to news reports/articles which point to some of the HHR activities and demonstrations which should be apt (alongwith the comparative argument) for the article to exist. Despite this, even if you continue to argue using the notability clause, the article seems to be still covered under WP:FAILORG and WP:NONPROFIT. A better use of space and time would be improving the article and making it more comprehensive. e.g. adding details regarding founding, membership, structure, etc. Toshi2k2 (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Categories: