Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (2nd nomination)


 * 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, default to keep. The main issue is whether this group has received enough coverage to qualify as notable. Personally, I think it has not, but reasonable people can disagree over the application of WP:ORG to borderline cases such as this one, and this discussion has not reached consensus about it either way. I see also no reason to discount people's opinions based merely on their prior edits to Falun Gong-related articles.  Sandstein  18:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong
AfDs for this article:
 * Articles for deletion/CIPFG
 * Articles for deletion/Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (2nd nomination)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article seems to fail WP:Notability, WP:ORG, WP:NOT. According to, the organization is a "little-known non-profit organization registered in Washington, D.C.", "The CIPFG itself is barely a coalition in the real sense of the word. Founded in April this year, it has yet to attract other human rights associations under its wing. On its website, the CIPFG lists no partners.", and "admitting that the CIPFG was "initiated" by Falun Dafa".

Since the last AFD, for months the article has been used as a content fork, orphaned and not been updated with anything with long term notability, and lack of articles focusing on the group itself rather than its cause. A Google search shows 25,700 results, news search now only lands only 25[], and mostly coming from either trivial mentions or the Epoch Times, a Falun Gong linked media outlet which fails WP:SPS and lack significant coverage. I think the best cause of action is redirect the namespace to Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China, which covers the same material as the group's causes. PCPP (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 *  Keep Merge/Redirect. The last AfD in January 2008 (Articles for deletion/CIPFG) was nearly unanimous for to keep. This was upheld in a recent deletion review. Although consensus can change, I still find Bduke's closing assessment that "Deletion is not the answer to the problem" pertinent. MrPrada (talk) 06:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Deletion is not the answer to the problem, but after EdJohnston's comments, I feel that a merge/redirect could be. MrPrada (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The last nomination survived because the users accused me of being a anti-FLG activist and being a bad faith nomination instead of addressing the issues at hand. The deletion review was closed because it was too old and asked me to renominate it for AFD instead. Please address how you feel this article meets the guidelines instead of questioning my intentions, thanks. --PCPP (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think at least one editor did address the issues at hand, pointing out that there are other sources that are reliable and secondary, Taipei Times, news.com.au published by News Limited, Strategic Forecasting, and the New Zealand Herald, pointing out that the Epoch times is not directly associated with the CIPFG, and that the google test is a very weak standard for inclusion. I made no reference to the nom being in bad faith, I pointed out that the closing administrator correctly assessed that the issues with the article are ones of cleanup, and not grounds for deletion. My assessment stands. MrPrada (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But other editors also addressed the issue at hand and the CIPFG, Epoch Times, and FLG's links. The NZ Herald article is about the "Human Rights Torch". Scoop article is a press release by the HRTR organisers. The Taipei Times article is about investigations of organ harvesting, and the CIPFG is only mentioned in one sentence, The Age article is an article relating to Queensland surgeons. Only The Embasssy Mag directly adressed the group at hand.--PCPP (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In naming these sources (excluding the many below), I am hearing reasons to cleanup, not to delete. Perhaps when and if this closes as a keep, the closing administrator will tag the article that there were issues brought up in the deletion discussion which need to be addressed, as was done with Pentagon Message Machine. MrPrada (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I have thought about this. I think the large amount of coverage of the Human Rights Torch Relay (HRTR) and also the Kilgour-Matas organ harvesting report is enough to grant notability to this subject (CIPFG). CIPFG are the organisers of the relay. There have been thousands of news articles written about the HRTR and they all talk about CIPFG. There are many other news articles which also talk about other activities of CIPFG; "Human Rights Torch Relay" should be a subsection of this article. CIPFG also has notable members like Kilgour and Matas, and before they were members, is the organisation who asked them to do their report on organ harvesting, which has gained quite significant global media coverage. So I think this organisation has been behind several major human rights based public and media events. If it were not for the HRTR and the organ harvesting report, I would not suggest this organisation is notable enough to warrant an article. I think the difficulty at the moment is that no one has taken the trouble to build this article up, so it still looks like a stub. There is, however, plenty of information online, enough to qualify WP:ORG.--Asdfg12345 08:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have done a search, and not found even one independent source in the first 30 results with each either from FLG organizations or advocacy groups. Information online should preferably be from third party independent sources. EgraS (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced you performed a thorough search. A google search from just this week for the CIPFG (not even archives), includes the Toronto Star, Journal News, and Miami Herald. MrPrada (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the Epoch Times articles, the rest of the articles from mainstream media are regarding the the "Human Rights Torch Relay", with a passing sentence or two about the CIPFG. This is not significant coverage.--PCPP (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, that search is just from the past seven days. Judging by the fact that it contained two major U.S. newspapers, and one major Canadian paper, I'd be suprised if I did not find similar results going back 30 days, 90 days, etc. (as was done for the last AfD, back in January). MrPrada (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, all of the above links dug up by MrPrada mention CIPFG only in a trivial manner. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Although persecution of FLG does exist, I believe that the article just has not received coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. The Epoch Times is certainly not an independent source. EgraS (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was demonstrated in the last AfD that there has been sufficient coverage from Independent reliable sources. Also, there has been nothing that suggests the Epoch times is not a reliable source, only that it is a primary source. I do not see it on the Reliable Source noticeboard, nor do I think it would be classified as unreliable, as it is an award winning publication on human rights abuses. MrPrada (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, but where did the last AFD "demonstrate sufficient coverage"? Having 20 links from google news, the majority from Epoch Times, is certainly not sufficient coverage, and per WP:NOT fails to demonstrate any long term notability. According to   it was founded by Falun Gong practitioners and has links with the organization. A US congressional report lists the Epoch Times as a Falun Gong-linked source . Even Li Hongzhi, the founder of Falun Gong, has expressed links between Epoch Times and Falun Gong practitioners. --PCPP (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Small note -- CIPFG is not run by Falun Gong practitioners. It is non-practitioners who are the members and chairs of the various chapters, like Sev Ozdowski (former human rights commissioner of Australia), Rabbi Reuven Bulka, Andrew Bartlett, David Kilgour, and so on. They are CIPFG. The Epoch Times was founded by Falun Gong practitioners. They are different groups of people; they have common interests. --Asdfg12345 04:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note I still think you need sources to back up your claims that those people are chairs and are involved in the operation of the CIPFG. And according to, "..says Mr. Jaw, a Falun Gong practitioner since 1997. While admitting that the CIPFG was "initiated" by Falun Dafa, (which represents Falun Gong internationally), Mr. Jaw denies that the "coalition" is a Falun Gong organization."


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * After looking at the previous AfD, I simply dont see the argument that there were reliable sources. A reliable source is one that is peer-reviewed and has no vested interest in the outcome of the event. Human rights organizations, despite their noble intentions, are certainly not third party, peer-reviewed, or neutral. EgraS (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Citing from WP:ORG: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.". OK so here is an incomplete enumeration of independent secondary sources: Taipei Times, Australian News , China Post , Hotpress , de Volkskrant , Sports Ilustrated: , ESPN Deportes , Handelsblatt , Politics.be , MyWire , Radio Czechoslovakia , Scoop NZ  and more ... For example Romanian press does not even show up in google news while searching for CIPFG, here are a few examples:    , these show up when you search like this: . So just as an analogy, if you look in French, German, Check, Polish, Asian, African, Oceanian, etc... media, you will find a lot of reference, because the human rights torch relay, organized by CIPFG actually went world wide, see: . --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles you mentioned mostly covered the Human Rights Torch Relay which CIPFG is involved in, not the CIPFG itself, and non-English sources does not apply to English wikipedia. The CIPFG, FLG, and Kilgour/Matas only gets a passing mention, so you still haven't proved why CIPFG meets notability guidelines instead of the HRTR. Significant coverage means focusing on the operation of the organization itself eg, not trivial mentions. WP:NOTE: Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail ... more than trivial but may be less than exclusive., Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works., Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. WP:NOBJ: Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability.--PCPP (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to Falun Gong. MrPrada appears to be misrepresenting the last AfD and the Deletion review conclusions: this attempt to reopen the discussion on the article from january is a valid challenge. It survived because a cabal of Falun Gong practitioners came out in support of it. The deletion review upheld the AfD for being too dated. Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong – AfD close endorsed, and given that the last AfD was in January, too much time has passed for a review of that AfD
 * User:RMHED closing out the deletion review
 * I strongly suspect that the Falun Gong publicists are out to create a walled garden of articles to counter the propaganda from their sworn enemy, the Chinese Communist Party. The workings of this, and of the previous AfD, show well how the Falun Gong publicity machine works. There appears to be a dearth of sources which qualify any of the references as any more than trivial mentions of this Falun Gong front organisation - on close examination, collections of trivial mentions such as those given above and below, has allowed probably hundreds of articles to be deleted at AfD for flunking WP:N. The Epoch Times is not, AFAIK, considered as a reliable source, and as far as this article is concerned, it and organharvesting.net amount to a primary source and a self-published source. Just because you initiate an event which atttracts media attention is insufficient to qualify you for WP:N
 * the references cited are all trivial mentions. Let's look one at a time the sources offered to rebut this AfD:
 * Taipei Times article is about the 2008 Olympics, and not about the CIPFG
 * Australian News, Politics.be, are about allegations of organ harvesting
 * China Post, Sports Ilustrated, Hotpress, ESPN Deportes, Handelsblatt, MyWire,  Radio Czechoslovakia,  Scoop NZ,  Roumanian sources (1, 2, 3, 4) are all about the torch relay, and I cannot say for sure which ones are not from syndicated sources and thus  fail to qualify under the multiple independent trivial.
 * de Volkskrant talks about the olympic boycott rally in the Netherlands


 * When you search like this:, there are a hand full of links only, most of them are to known Falun Gong sites (clearwisdom, opfg), and I strongly suspect the same will be the case in all the other languages. This is a self-published source. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Question: Basically you want another article called Human Rights Torch Relay ? That is an excellent idea :) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also please note that CIPFG was mentioned, true, mainly because of the Human Rights Torch Relay so WP:ORG stands: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.". --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * One more thing just for the record, The Epoch Times is a reliable source, it's a publication and it has reviews, as far as CIPFG goes, it might be said that it's not independent, because it has connection with Falun Gong, but that is all you can say. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction: what you stated can only be a record of what you think. I do not believe it is a statement of wikifact. As far as I am aware, The Epoch Times is not considered reliable source. As the de facto mouthpiece of Falun Gong, it certainly is not independent as far as this article is concerned. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it has connections with Falun Gong, it cannot be considered a reliable source in the context of this article. nneonneo talk 21:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anyone is misrepresenting the DRV or AfD. The outcomes are very, very clear. RHMED clearly said first "AfD close endorsed", and the conclusion of the last AfD closed as "The result was Keep. Deletion is not the answer to the problems". Nothing was mentioned about any pro or anti Falung Gong cabals, although there seem to be legitimate concerns both ways. MrPrada (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there are trails left by Epoch Times reporters, but I for one am here to edit facts backed up by notalbe source on my own, at no one's direction or any sort of organization. Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Observation:: Talk:2008_Summer_Olympics was first mentioned on 24 May 2008, and the new request for CIPFG deletion was made on 30 May 2008. Draw your own conclusions, and if it's not evident, you can read the stages of genocide nr. 8 is of particular interest. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete or Redirect to related article. As mentioned by Ohconfucius, most of the references are not related to the CIPFG. CIPFG has almost no notability outside of their torch relay, and even that is not very notable. It has not been the subject of multiple reliable sources; rather, it has simply been mentioned in passing in the majority of the sources provided (the remainder are, as discussed previously, not reliable sources). nneonneo talk 21:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The torch relay has got significant media coverage, hundreds of news articles from around the world in many different publications--this is obvious with a google search. CIPFG was also the organisation who asked David Kilgour and David Matas to do their report on organ harvesting, which has gained huge media attention. Further, there are a number of notable members of CIPFG, a few are listed above, beside which there are many others. I'm just distiling a few of the key points. I am under the impression that these make it qualify for notability, according to the policy. However, if CIPFG does not qualify for notability given these points, then the article should be deleted. But it should be explained how it does not qualify, given the above points. --Asdfg12345 01:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Move to List of organizations associated with Falun Gong. Falun Gong has numerous campaigns and organizations associated with it. Do we really need an individual article for each one?--AstrixZero (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Coalition to Investigate the Persectuion of Falun Gong is an organization playing a central role in investigation of Human Rights abuses in CCP's Persecution of Falun Gong. As pointed out by other editors, the Coalition has many prominent Human Rights activists such as Kilgour and Matas associated with it and the coalition has been involved in major human rights activities such as the Global Human Rights Torch Relay and the Million signature campaign to end the persecution of Falun Gong. The article should be kept and gradually expanded. Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, particularly to the closing admin. Please see the talk page. I am concerned that conflicts of interest may affect the outcome of this deletion debate, since many of the parties involved have a highly active role in the Falun Gong article. Please do not be offended if I have listed your name there; I am simply listing those who were identified as having active roles. Thank you for your attention. nneonneo talk 17:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Observation - CIPFG is a lobby group founded by Falun Gong. Source: Lum CRS report, http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL33437.pdf. BTW I vote Delete Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect without deletion with a related list, event, or movement, or Keep. Specifically:  Keep with a strong recommendation for the interested editors to agree on a merge/redirect target.  It barely meets WP:N and might have a stronger case as time goes on.  When that happens, the article should be de-merged.  As of today, it's barely notable:  I only found significant coverage for its publicizing alleged organ-harvesting and some torch relay - enough to meet WP:N but barely.  If this weren't so heavily followed it would probably be PRODded away without objection.  The current edit looks good, well-sourced, and appropriately-small-sized for an organization of such minor notability. I shouldn't have to say this, but I am a disinterested party. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)  But I must admit, I was canvassed.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  01:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * lol to david's final comment ["disinterested"] there. Maybe interested parties (such as myself) would have been better off just staying out of this, and letting other wikipedians decide!--Asdfg12345 00:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * though, while I cannot say I am not "interested", I don't personally care if the page is deleted. I won't be upset or anything. The merge/redirect might be a good option, with the possibility of demerge if CIPFG starts generating more media or is behind bigger things. For example, though this group does not consist of Falun Gong practitioners, it could conceivably go under the "Falun Gong outside mainland China" page, with a subsection, and explain how FLG support this organisation and the events it has organised, and give its membership of the prominent people and so on. That's the only other place I could think it might belong. 2 cents.--Asdfg12345 00:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect. This organization is scarcely notable in its own right, and I don't know of any references that make it out to be more than a satellite of Falun Gong. We have practically no coverage of this organization on its own. For instance, is it a religious group, a charitable group, a political action group, who founded it, in what year, in what country is it incorporated, and does it have any leadership independent of Falun Gong itself. If it is a coalition, that suggests a grouping of organizations, so who are the member organizations? The articles about Reuven Bulka and Andrew Bartlett make no mention of this coalition. There is nothing bad about Falun Gong itself sponsoring the various activities, but the claim that this particular coalition is a 'global grassroots campaign' (per the Epoch Times) seems like astroturfing. EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Activist organizations are rarely notable "in their own right" outside the scope of whatever they are activists for or against. Major anti-slavery organizations weren't "notable in their own right" outside of the issue of slavery.  The question is, does this entity meet the threshold of WP:N.  It is so close to the line that different editors will answer differently.  That's why it's in AfD with a divided opinion, instead of a WP:SNOW to keep or delete.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  01:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This Congressional Research Service report states that the CIPFG is a U.S. based NGO so we do know what country it is incorporated in.  That information is also in the article.  Yes, it was set up by the Falun Dafa Association, but that does not make it any less notable in its own right.  Its political ties simply a question of POV issues within the article, not a question of notability or whether or not the article should be deleted entirely. --Ave Caesar (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess what is distasteful to me is that this seems like a front organization for Falun Gong, a possibility which gets no coverage in our current article.
 * Falun Gong appears to crave the appearance of grassroots support from groups other than themselves.
 * Nothing in the current article addresses the question of whether they are really independent, which surely would be an interesting question.
 * Even if we found that question interesting, we would not be able to provide coverage from reliable sources to say whether they are independent or not, because we can find practically no sources in neutral media that describe the coalition itself. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are good, worthwhile points. They would be interesting to flesh out if we had the sources. As far as I can tell, those people like Sev Ozdowski, David Kilgour, David Matas, Reuven Balka and so forth, speak for CIPFG, come up with ideas for campaigns, and discuss how they will do things together. They give speeches, write letters, and append their name as CIPG so and so. At the same time, I believe the grassroots activity, such as getting petitions signed, the day-to-day running of the torch relay and so on, are mostly organised on a local level through informal networks of Falun Gong practitioners, who, when its topical, enlist the help of others (like in the torch relay with Tibetans, Burmese, Darfurians, for example).
 * Basically, I don't believe this is a Falun Gong front group in the same way as WOIPFG (world organisation to investigate the persecution of falun gong), or umm, oh I don't know, there are several, where it is Falun Gong practitioners themselves who run the whole show (though in the case of WOIPFG I'm not sure they claim they're not)--but there is clearly direct involvement from practitioners. I'm wondering whether all these discussions should be moved to the talk page? It would be a worthwhile assignment for a mainstream newspaper to explore these relationships and interactions, come to think of it. Maybe in a while that will happen, then there won't be a problem to have an article on it.--Asdfg12345 02:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been listed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.  01:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment As 'membership' is not a concept applicable to Falun Gong, it would be easy for any practitioner, individual, or group of people to claim they were "independent", although it would be clear to all where their allegiances lay. David Kilgour and David Matas, who are human rights activists sponsored by the CIPFG, can no longer be deemed "independent". The act of sponsorship clearly puts them into the pockets of the Falun Gong Ohconfucius(talk) 04:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Kilgour and Matas are advocates of human rights. There are no concepts of 'pockets'. Don't employ unclear thinking to make rhetorical points. What they are advocating for is the cessation of human rights abuses toward Falun Gong. There's no other purpose behind these activities. Also, I don't know what you mean by sponsored by CIPFG. I understand that they are members and supporters. They are who they are. They can be referred to in Falun Gong articles as reliable sources; they don't practice Falun Gong. That they advocate against the human rights abuses doesn't diminish their credibility.--Asdfg12345 13:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable international organization per cites. Further, the nom was made only within 6 months of the previous one which is simply inappropriate. This isn't a game of nominating articles until the decision goes your way. Not to mention the fact that the nom seems to be a single purpose account bent on promoting pro-China POV and has shown absolutely no respect to the process of Wiki from the very end of the previous AfD by slyly attempting to redirect the article merely two weeks after his previous attempt at having the article deleted failed.  She/he then reattempted this many more times after being warned      .  This nomination is one giant violation of WP:POINT. The last time he did this, I brought the issue up at ANI which resulted in a 48hr block against PCPP by .  When he realized that his efforts at unilaterally moving the article weren't going to fly, he decided to open up this AfD.  Moreover, many of the leaders of the organization are independent of the Falun Gong and are otherwise highly respected. For instance, the head of its Canadian branch is a highly influential Jewish Rabbi, Reuven Bulka who is the head of the Machzikei Hadas congregation. --Ave Caesar (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The impression I get, from having hung around AfD's for some time, is that 6 months does appear to be a reasonable gap between the first and second nomination. Also, we all know that the transparent system we have means that we cannot "slyly" do anything on WP. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected then, he was blantantly and callously violating Wiki policies. --Ave Caesar (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Just from the outside, this appears to meet our normal standards for being a notable organization and having sourcing to that effect. For the record, I came here upon seeing this Afd mentioned at AN/I and after reading the COIN discussion. DGG (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment We have heard the Falun Gong editors, as they typically do, advance and reinforce the moralistic and circumstantial arguments why [this organisation] is relevant. However, I feel that none have succeeded in demonstrating that this organisation is notable. None have advanced concrete arguments based on existing wikipedia policies and guidelines to keep this article. Even asdfg has suggested it may be notable for having organised the torch relay, but that tacitly admitted that it is not notable for itself. Notablity is not associative.  Ohconfucius (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: I failed to understand on what basis this organization meets the notability guidelines. Don't be fool with the references. The references has no significant coverage on this particular organization.
 * Reference 2, Taipei Times: The only mention of this organization in this reference is The US-based lobby group The Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of the Falun Gong in China (CIPFG) asked the duo to investigate claims by several of their members.
 * Reference 3, Stratfor: This reference is not free.
 * Reference 4: This reference has a little mention about this organization and that is The Human Rights Torch was initiated by the Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (CIPFG) - a group of more than 350 MPs, Senators, lawyers, doctors, athletes, and human rights defenders. The Coalition was formed in 2006 to investigate allegations of widespread, state-sanctioned organ harvesting of living Falun Gong practitioners. The CIPFG believes you simply cannot have people being killed for their organs for huge profit in one part of Beijing and the world's greatest sporting event in another part of Beijing.
 * Reference 5: The only mention of CIPFG is The relay was initiated by the Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong, established last year. This article is about a news event, not about the organization, and the mention of this organization is only passing sound.
 * Reference 6 and 7 are The Epoch Times, which is a politically motivated partisan source orchestrated by Falun Gong.
 * Reference 8: It has only a little mention about the organization that The petition called on the Government to support moves by the recently formed Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (CIPFG). The coalition was set up to investigate the forced organ harvesting allegations and the illegal detention of Falun Gong practitioners. It has sought to prevent Australian citizens from travelling to China for organ transplants and ban companies, institutions and individuals from providing goods and services to China's organ transplant programs.

Per WP:ORG, Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Reference 2 only mentions the name of the organization, reference 4 is passing sound and incidental coverage, reference 5 only mentions the name and reference 8, which has the most coverage among all the sources given, is only incidental trivial coverage. This organization blatantly fails WP:ORG. In this way we can form a pro-Falun Gong and pro-Tibet cabal and the cabal will be above wikipedia policies on WP:ORG. I am well-aware that there is no lack of editors who will come in this AfD to blindly say keep, strong keep or even speedy keep. I hope the closing administrator knows what he is doing.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment CIPFG is responsible for the torch relay as well as the investigation report from some time back makes it a notable organization. It passes WP:ORG by it and its efforts (ie the torch relay) being the primary subject of multiple sources. --Ave Caesar (talk) 18:45, 4 June 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.