Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ASSAR


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

ASSAR

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article fails notability criteria per WP:ORG and WP:GNG -- and includes WP:HOAX material. It appears to be only one person's website (built by the article's creator), all text is sourced to and copied from that single website, and a search found no independent reliable sources. Furthermore, the creator tries to pass off online sources which are entirely unrelated to topic but merely share the name "Assar" (for example, a paper by Ahmed N. Assar, an exhibit by the Assar Art Gallery in Iran, a book by the Assar Architect Group of Brussels, etc.) — Cactus Writer (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —  Cactus Writer (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —  Cactus Writer (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Categorization Not eligible for discussion in list of Organizations-related deletion discussions because its not an organisation as per the findings of its base research and until & unless its categorised in India & Asia, we should wait.       — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijeet Sinha Sinha (talk • contribs) 20:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails to meet WP:ORG and more likely a promotion. Most references are WP:Primary. Dejakh ~ User talk:Dejakh•Contributions/Dejakh 19:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete It definitely sounds like promotion but promotion of 'Humanity' and if Wikipedia is defined as a voluntary association of humanitarians working to develop a common resource of human knowledge, there is no point of deleting such valuable article WP:NPOV that showing a way to prevent Human Rights in ASIA by people itself. Instead of depending on secondary sources Wikipedians who are knowledgeable enough to challenge, discuss, elaborate, suggest improvements to bring in on Wikipedia standards. Asian-Social-Editor (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC) — Asian-Social-Editor (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.   Struck comment from sock of . Someguy1221 (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete copyright issues and not fit to be on Wikipedia Uncletomwood (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Uncletomwood, I see that the source website states its material is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL which means there is no copyright issue and doesn't qualify for G12 speedy deletion. — Cactus Writer (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks like a promotional crap with no reliable sources. Salih  ( talk ) 15:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Dislike WP:IDL as it looks promotional may not suffice the ground for deletion but such notable subject must be given a chance WP:CHANCEAbhijeet Sinha Sinha (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 *  KEEP  Not Eligible for Speedy Delete Agreed with CactusWriter contents on source website are under Sharealike 3.0 Unported License CC-BY-SA 3.0 and free from copyright issues and can be used anywhere without consent. I tried searching independent media materials about ASSAR's founder and have included some articles published in local media as reference.Asian-Social-Editor (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Struck comment from sock of . Someguy1221 (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 *  KEEP  Critical Issues with this article is this that it is being written on a research done by a Human Right's Defender & RTI Activist from Asia and attacks on HRD & RTI Activists in Asia is very frequent and they are grass root protectors of human rights but often they often act alone, moved by anger at corruption and other illegal activities without coming in media notice due to their security reasons. They receive media attention only when killed or seriously injured. According to Secondary or tertiary sources on Wikipedia itself more than 143 HRD & RTI activists were killed & assaulted in India only in last 6 years which makes it obvious that such activist prefer no publicity of their work in local media & tertiary sources.Attacks on RTI activists in India Asian-Social-Editor (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)   Struck comment from sock of . Someguy1221 (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 *  KEEP  Secondary or tertiary sources citation issue of this article is attracting critics because the nature of research done is not categorised as of now in Asia which has been adequately explained in its para Criticism. Please read this again before taking a biased decision to delete it. It looks like WP:OR Original research written in form of WP:NOT PAPER may appear like promotion without Secondary or tertiary but its promoting a cause WP:PROMOTION of Human Knowledge and values related to Human Rights not promoting any person or organisation. Asian-Social-Editor (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)  Struck comment from sock of . Someguy1221 (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 *  KEEP  Deletion of unrelated references has been practised as suggested by (talk) but not justified to includes WP:HOAX material because Wikipedia is not for things made up one day as ASSAR was not created in one day also. However during the years of its research it was not available on line but after completion in 2012 it shown up as a programme of humanitarians which meets eligibility under Notability category and sub category Notability (web)Abhijeet Sinha Sinha (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 *  KEEP  Not eligible for delete under WP:ORG as its never been about an organisation. While it should not be deleted because its meets eligibility of WP:CREATIVE as the people developing this article & programme have to be creative and Secondary or tertiary sources are coming from other editors also there are strong possibilities that more Secondary or tertiary references will come in future as it develops therefore it deserves to be given a chance under eligibly of WP:CHANCE. Tagging it for speedy deletion is like putting a deadline WP:DEADLINE and deleting it in lack of references cited as of now is like killing an notable effort WP:DEMOLISH. There are notable references yet to come from countries like Pakistan, Sri-Lanka, India & Afghanistan where media is little influenced and controlled.Abhijeet Sinha Sinha (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 *  KEEP  Poorly Written may be a justified tag WP:UGLY for this article but not a ground for deletion. Experienced senior contributes can improve its formatting and alinement's to look more appropriate.Abhijeet Sinha Sinha (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I have struck multiple KEEP opinions by two user accounts above. I am also struck by the similarity of their formatting and interest in this article. AllyD (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Most references are primary sources, therefore also fails WP:WEBCRIT. — Mel bourne Star ☆ talk 07:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - no coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability, and Wikipedia is not a webhost, or soapbox either. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.