Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empowerment and Rights Institute


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Empowerment and Rights Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I've searched for sources and found little. Several sources mention in passing the government's raid on this group in 2005, and some give short quotes from its leaders, but I'm not finding anything in-depth. Perhaps some Chinese-language sources could help out here? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – The organization's own website has dozens of other references. They don't all mention it directly, but normally the 4 cites in the article should be enough. One thing is that all of those references are from 2005 or 2006, as were mentions in books. It might not exist anymore. But under WP:NTEMP, if it was notable in 2005 I think it's still keep. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked thru the sources on their website, and it's the exact same thing that promotional editors do here to create articles on non-notable groups: bombard with low-quality cites. More than half of their links are about human rights in general and make no mention of the organization, and the rest are mere passing mentions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – I think the purpose of that page was a bit different. It's about human rights, not about satisfying Wikipedia's GNG. But in any case, even if they don't mention the organization itself, if you look a bit deeper many do mention people connected to the organization. For example, you can search for this on Google for hits about the organization's director: [site:www.erichina.org "Hou Wenzhuo"]. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Easily finding plenty of source coverage and discussion at . &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * keep was able to find some good sources, really don't see any issues Cec2020 (talk) 01:59, 4 February 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.