Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabic Network for Human Rights Information


 * 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 keep. John254 00:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Arabic Network for Human Rights Information

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nomination from DRV. Originally speedily deleted as CSD A7, listed on DRV and then recreated. Article is somewhat promotional in tone, although it was argued that this did not reach the criteria for CSD G11. Article is still missing reliable secondary sources attesting to notability and is substantially composed of a long block quote. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless notability per WP:ORG is established. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep. I think this is adequate (barely) as a stub and that if it is a real bona-fide organization it has the potential to be an interesting article. I suggest placing a stub template on it and researching it. Renee (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I entered the name of the group in Google news and many articles came up. I've re-worked the piece and added several reliable references.  I actively searched for criticisms of the group and could find none. I think we should remove the reference and AFD templates and add the stub template.  It must be a fairly new group as most of the newspaper articles on it are within the last couple of months.Renee (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but expand. Stub it but tag it for more secondary sources that are more reliable to strengthen it. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- this is something like the Arabic equivalent of the ACLU. Geo Swan (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I hope the nominator could explain this "Procedural nomination from DRV." My first experience with DRV was over Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism.  Nominator nominated the article for deletion within its first minute.  Closing admin deleted it in spite of the hangon I placed on it.  I now realize this should have been a completely open and shut case.  It was a very unpleasant surprise to see the article nominated for deletion as soon as it was restored.  Based on this experience I thought afd were automatic when deletions were overturned.  I found it very unpleasant to be told this wasn't true.  Is an afd following restoration really discretionary?  Then what justification is there for this one?  Geo Swan (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm thinking the answer to your question lies in the suggestions of a few of the participants of the DRV in question. A lot of users find its best to leave it up to the community to discuss it since it was in fact recreated and hence, no longer a matter for DRV, then left up to the rationale of the admin closing. I'd close it myself but I shy away from speedy closing afds I've participated in. Hope this clears up a bit. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is clearly notable, English google news alone finds close to 100 articles mentioning it, and the current version of the article can be seen as a stub (some base info like where? when? who? really would be nice, but if I want to I can add that myself). --Minimaki (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Good point. I added some of the requested information.  Renee (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Clarification and comment. It seems there is some confusion regarding what the procedural nomination means. Because there was consensus that the article should be listed on AfD as a result of the DRV, I did this. I myself am not expressing an opinion if the article should be kept or not and don't feel that it is is proper in my role as DRV closer to do so. So, I'm neutral. It should, however, be listed for the full 5 days. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, there's no deadline here. The very large number of quotes from this group in world media is pretty strong evidence of notability. I'm sure that Arabic-language secondary sources exist, even if we haven't incorporated them yet. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 14:30, 7 March 2008 (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.