Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CSLRA


 * 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. Does not have in-depth coverage from reliable sources that is sufficient to show notability. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

CSLRA

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to fail WP:NGO. Most news sources cited only contain a passing mention of the org's founder. Note: Analysed the major contributor's edits, less likely a WP:SPA and more likely done in good faith &#x2011;Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, this might be a case of WP:COI. &#x2011;Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sir here in India; mainly in litigation sector hardly any litigation is entertained by Courts in names of organizations. They are generally entertained in the names of persons. This being a new organization; might have engaged into filing of matters in the name of their founders. Nevertheless the same is a good resource. So it should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srin2015 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

However yet; in case you think that the page is not important enough; I personally request the same be removed.Srin2015 (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It is a comprehensive enough data to understand the functioning of an NGO. In India generally courts do not give permissions to file matter through NGOs and they are filed through their employees or any other case. So, merely stating that the cases (all come from official sites of the Courts) have been filed by founder doesn't quantify the same to be bare references as all of them are original and official Court resources. Rest references from media are from respected media houses of India. I strongly differ with the above discussion. 124.253.33.248 (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete--no good indication this is a notable outfit, no secondary sources proving it. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2015 (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.