Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu Human Rights

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 delete. The subject has been mentioned in reliable sources to some degree. However, upon analysis of the sources presented, consensus here determined that the organization itself lacks significant, in-depth coverage to meet the threshold of notability in accordance with WP:NORG. ✗plicit 13:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Human Rights

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

WP:Clearly notable. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Notwithstanding your inability to read WP:NORG (the criteria is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you might like WP:WHATABOUTX. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
BBC News	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Articles detail Hindu Human Rights (HHR) and quotes their petition and responses.
Times of India	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	HHR mentioned in a prominent way.
The Hindu	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Article is directly related with HHR.
Total qualifying sources					3

WP:NORG is met. Toshi2k2 (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindu article is about Meghnad Desai's reaction to some campaign on M. F. Hussain that the organization had started.
The TOI article has two paragraphs. In the second of them, it notes that our subject has planned a protest against Hussain.

This is literally the reason for which a NYT source was deemed to not make the cut in the boilerplate source-analysis-table provided at NCORP.

The BBC article on Tina Turner devotes two lines to the organization. (1) The organization has planned to protest her appearance in her film and (2) that they have circulated a petition.

Once again, the coverage is not significant.

The BBC article on Harrods quotes HHR executives on some controversy over a store selling objectionable clothing.

Same. Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement [include] brief or passing mentions, such as quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources.

If you can source details about membership, structure etc. from independent and reliable sources, add them. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, The Times of India has "no consensus to generally unreliable" in terms of reliability. I advise against sourcing from it for controversial/problematic/high-profile subjects. — DaxServer (talk to me) 06:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet finished my own search for sources, but the sources provided above are absolutely not substantive. They offer nothing substantial about the organization besides verifying its existence and its participation in a specific protest. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Founded in 2000, in London,[1] their activities have got significant coverage from scholarly sources.[2][3][4] and media sources.[5] Otinflewer (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage it is, significant it is not. P. J. Nelson tabulates the subject in a list of faith-based NGOs. Shinder S. Thandi, whose same work (chapter) you have cited twice, mentions the organization in a single paragraph about the protests. To repeat what Vanamonde93 said, the sources offer nothing substantial about the organization besides verifying its existence and its participation in specific protest[s]. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS does not apply because the coverage was not one-off but attracted attention from scholarly sources. The coverage is significant enough. Instead of using CTRL+F, you need to read the actual sources that have been provided. Otinflewer (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Toshi2k2 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an advocacy group that lacks the required coverage needed for wikipedia article. Some users have pointed a few and I am not convinced that it meets the criteria of WP:NORG. Venkat TL (talk) 09:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with TrangaBellam and Vanamonde93 above that none of the sources provided meet WP:ORGDEPTH, and my searching doesn't find anything that goes beyond a few sentences. Until the organization receives in-depth coverage (not the occasional mention or quote) from reliable sources, it doesn't meet WP:NORG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TrangaBellam and Vanamonde93. Fails WP:NORG.4meter4 (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per vanamonde93 comments. Gentleman wiki (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2021 (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.