Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Terrorist Front 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 Draftify. The Delete comments make good points about the quality of sourcing and coverage. If the article can be improved on those criteria then it may be suitable for mainspace. Therefore I have not deleted it at this time. Black Kite (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Terrorist Front India

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I invoke WP:TNT. I was going to try and salvage this very poorly translated page (or written by a non-native English speaker) but it's nothing more than childish back and forth edits about cutting off each other's heads. It may (barely) pass WP:GNG but it's just not salvageable in the current state while attracting vandals on all sides. Ifnord (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't think TNT is necessary here, I think the article should just be deleted. It seems like there was a disruptive user. I have placed a second-level disruptive edits warning on the user's talk page and will see if the user continues to disrupt. Other than that, the article does not seem to cover a notable subject. I tried to clean the article up as best as I could, but after seeing how little is left after removing the debris, I'm not convinced the subject is notable. The page is mostly about the founder and not the organization. And beyond that, it seems like there is only routine news coverage (of an "anti-terrorist" organization that puts hits out on people--what? I guess we're here to build an encyclopedia and not to judge...). Does anybody have an argument for notability? Ikjbagl (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Appears to have gained enough coverage from reliable sources. Bvatsal61 (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , none of it is WP:SIGCOV, getting mentioned in the news is not enough. We would need significant coverage from independent reliable sources, even if it were not a very contentious topic. Since it is, it needs a lot more care; I can't stress this enough—there is not one good source to support the article. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. Significant coverage in reliable sources is clearly visible but the article may need more improvements. Satpal Dandiwal (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , you misunderstand what WP:SIGCOV is. All sources so far provided have been routine non-coverages and press releases. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep AFD is not cleanup. Article passes GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment from sock of banned user struck. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT, this organisation might well pass GNG, but any article on it would share nothing in common with this one. The article is a dumpster fire, filled with deliberately inflammatory and bigoted material. It might well be actively dangerous to keep it around. Article is also heavily promotional, even after cleanup, with it reading more like the organisations' website than an actual article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned up the article further. Bvatsal61 (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Draftify, while I'd agree the article needs to be done over, deletion will probably result in the article being recreated in a similar iteration, a draft which is less accessible is less likely to suffer a similar fate. There are also a few usable sources in the article. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 14:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Meets WP:NORG and since the article has improved enough after the AfD it seems that TNT no longer applies. Azuredivay (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Which sources are you counting toward notability? Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the sources given are a SIGCOV on the organisation; it's routine coverage relating to what the chief of the organisation claimed/said/organised/alleged. The coverage is not SIGCOV on the chief either. There are hints that this is a right-wing organisation whose activities are anti-muslim dogwhistling; in any case, very likely a contentious topic. As such, we need high quality independent and reliable sources; the sources included don't have enough to even write a good definition of what the organisation is and what it does, let alone a WP:NPOV one. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Their activities have got significant coverage in reliable sources who are "independent" from the subject. Here is a source which talks about the purpose of the organization.Orientls (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per the links I provided above. Orientls (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , there is nothing usable in the links you added. It's more of the same, i.e. what the organisation chief has claimed. It's very routine and very non-independent. First one, all about what the the chief says. Only thing independent is "ATFI has been opposing hosting a cricket match", second one just summarises what the chief said in a "press release". The third one reports what a state secretary of the organisation said in a press interview, it's completely unusable. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Finding loopholes in these reliable sources won't really help your case. Patrika, Hindustan Times are all reliable sources and the coverage is significant, it passes WP:NOTROUTINE. Bvatsal61 (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , the coverage is literally about press releases or other claims made by one person, the chief, regarding a particular event he/the-organisation has planned. That's the very definition of WP:ROUTINE. WP:NOTROUTINE is an essay to help understand what's routine, it's not a counter-argument against ROUTINE. At any rate, those are coverages of the said planned event, there isn't anything usable about the organisation in there. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:42, 31 May 2020 (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.