Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil Human Rights Front


 * 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 no consensus, defaulted to keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Civil Human Rights Front

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks and reference with one external link to primary website Murry1975 (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - There are no multiple secondary sources. STSC (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a promo piece with no notability established. --Cold Season (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. & others. Fails WP:GNG & WP:ORG.--JayJasper (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable and covered in third party sources (tip: try Google), see http://www.scmp.com/topics/civil-human-rights-front, http://books.google.com/books?id=3rHQ6LPY22UC&pg=PA56 ("On 13 September 2002, more than 30 groups formed the Civil Human Rights Front (CHRF). (Some groups joined later to make the total number of 44 groups by..."), http://www.dw.de/hong-kong-protesters-hold-pro-democracy-rally/a-16917552 , http://books.google.com/books?id=neU79s5eexAC&pg=PA210 , http://books.google.com/books?id=tHwZ-J2jZq8C&pg=PA160 , http://books.google.com/books?id=hzCFjiByOvcC&pg=PA42 , http://books.google.com/books?id=e1fN0IvbBaIC&pg=PA97 ("The Front was behind the 50,000 stong 9 July protests... Such "people power" displays forced the chief executive, C. H. Tung, to shelve the bill and accept the resignation of two cabinet secretaries within two days."), http://www.demotix.com/news/1703282/hong-kong-starts-2013-rallies-and-marches , well in total 208 Google Books hits(!). Sourcing the material of this article shouldn't be that complex. --Soman (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)




 * Delete Not notable as the article stands now. Even with all of the google hits rferenced above, there is only one source, and it is in Chinese. SOXROX (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Notability is not determined by the contents of an article at a given, but whether the notability of the article subject can be established (the exceptions are biographies of living people, for which lack of references mandates deletion). Do also note that non-English references are perfectly acceptable as sources. --Soman (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 *  Further comment - The rationale given by the nominator is the lack of references entirely with only a link to the self-published website. The unsourced article is totally unacceptable. STSC (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - As shown by Soman, significant coverage exists when searching through Google Books. This alone shows that significant coverage exists in reliable sources to establish notability and that the article can be developed, and uses only the English language name for searches for an oprganisation in a country where the primary language is Chinese.  That the current state of the article contains no sources simply means it is one of many imperfect articles which requires work to improve it.  The solution to an unsourced article on a notable topic is to have references added.  We cannot collaboratively edit an article to improve it when it is deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've added some of the sources identified above to the article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into "Hong Kong 1 July marches" - I have changed my stance to "merge". STSC (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment but the history of CHRF predates the July 1 marches. For example the July 9 protests were amongst the largest organized by the group. --Soman (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:GNG (thanks, Whpg).  Mini  apolis  13:22, 2 August 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.