Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Human Rights Council of India

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. Sandstein 21:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Human Rights Council of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Human Rights Council of India Stats)

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

Nominated for speedy deletion by Bharathiya before.[1] Article made by an editor who probably came for promoting this particular organization.

Subject fails WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• G11 - Not entirely sure why User: Liz only seems to have addressed the G3 nomination (which yes, shouldn't have been there). But this is G11 pretty loud and clear. The current version, which actually seems to be the more toned down version, doesn't have really anything here that someone would obviously need or want if the subject was in fact notable and they sat down to write a quality article. That's... G11. GMG^talk 17:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what is G11, I have read just now. Some admins may decline because article is around for a long time, maybe AFD is only way. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete India has one of the largest, liveliest media scenes in the world, yet this orgganization got 7 hits, the sole hit in India was echoed, so make that 6 hits, total in a proquest news archive search on "National Human Rights Council of India." But that hit is a doozy. NGO misusing its identity, warns rights panel, 2 December 2010 Hindustan Times. Here's the text: "India's apex human rights authority, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Thursday alerted state governments on the misuse of its identity by an NGO with a similar name. The organisation in question is the National Human Rights Council of India (NHRCI). "The National Human Rights Commission has asked all concerned state governments to take action against the National Human Rights Council of India (NHRCI) for misusing the name of NHRC. The concerned organisation's email address also resembles the NHRC's," a statement said here. "It has been observed that some NGOs give false impression to the public that they are working on behalf of the NHRC. Some of them also wrongly claim to be either members of the NHRC or being associated with it," it added. The commission said that the NHRC had no branches in states, and it neither registers nor authorises any NGO to carry out work on its behalf. "Any institution or NGO claiming to be functioning on behalf of the NHRC or having affiliation with it is liable for action against it by the concerned state authorities as per the law," it added."E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The AfD seems to have been created incorrectly, it is redlinked in the template on National Human Rights Council of India.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done GMG^talk 19:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment User:RoySmith, User:E.M.Gregory, this edit by an IP broke the AfD link, and that was done yesterday about 18 hours ago. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding that, but let's just let this run anyway. It's not like there was a huge amount of disucssion, and the world isn't going to end if we talk about it for another week. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to relisting, was just clarifying that I had properly created the AfD. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The original 2009 article linked to the website of what now describes itself as National Human Rights Community India ([2]) whereas the article, after being stripped down by IP edits in 2010-11, links to the website of Human Rights Council of India (Protection of Human Rights) [3], with the article text a close paraphrase of the latter organisation's website. It claims to have been founded in 2012, 2 years after the NHRC warning (alternative link) which may have referred to the first organisation. I suspect there's been repurposing along the convoluting article history. But anyway, the wording is promotional (and possibly falling under Copyvio) and I am seeing no evidence that either of these organisations meets WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This "article" is literally a short paragraph with an empty external links section. First person pronouns were used making it totally informal, the writing is just poor all around, and the oddly placed link and author being related to the organization makes it seem like advertising of some sort. Not meeting WP:V, is however meeting WP:NOTPROMO which is also bad. Grapefruit17 (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2017 (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.