Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Human Rights Organization


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

International Human Rights Organization

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG as searches for ""International Human Rights Organization" premi" do not find independent coverage SmartSE (talk) 11:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 11:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 11:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Although the title is a common keyword, there is no coverage to find about this specific organization. I could find only one low-quality secondary source. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment--How this ended up at DELSORT/INDIA? ~ Winged Blades Godric 03:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Founded in India' made me put it under the group. MT Train Talk 17:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep If you can find only one low-quality secondary source, you might want to recuse yourself for bias and/or conflict-of-interest. Six secondary sources were directly posted in the article. Twelve more added since now brings the total to 18. The IHRO website has a prominent and clearly-labeled press page listing 42 more secondary press references in English, Hindi, Bengali and Tamil. There's no rule that says sources must be limited to English. The "low-quality secondary source" you reference is a student club at the University of North Dakota law school bearing zero relation to the subject, the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) NGO holding worldwide membership of 112,000.
 * Where is one quality secondary source in all of this? All I see is passing mentions or weak repeats from press releases, in articles of terrible quality. I can’t see one meaningful action from this organization described anywhere, nor any source for that magical 112,000 number we see repeated here. The name is so impossibly generic that there is no way to distinguish it from noise. No project listed. No report listed. Lorem Ipsum text still splashed all over the website. There’s no way we should have an article about this. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Internet searches in English will always underestimate results for people from a non-Anglophone country. Premi is found everywhere in common Bengali use. In this example there's a massive confusion of hits with several unrelated pages. Does it have to be pointed out that "common name + common phrase" is a really bad example of a query from which to draw any conclusions whatsoever? If this were an American organization, based on American references, with more than 112,000 members, we would not be having this discussion. The last thing we need is more bias and discrimination.


 * Comment The creator claim is highly unlikely by definition. UNESCO/ECOSOC Goodwill Ambassadors are limited to a handful, selected for celebrity following and renown, follow an ambitious itinerary, and hold a retinue of full-time staff at their disposal. Far more likely would be an obsessive fan. Your presumption directly conflicts with the privacy rights of all five named Goodwill Ambassadors, and only redoubles the harm presented by a doppelgänger.
 * Goodwill Ambassador Rohatgi decries problems from fake Wikipedia profiles dating back to 2014. — 📦Datta 08:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. More notable than, say, the English Tiddlywinks Association, though Wikipedia can surely accommodate both.--Davidcpearce (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Any actual evidence for that assertion? --Calton | Talk 16:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also like to see arguments backing the notability claim. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete A global organization with 112,000 members needs to use a Strikingly.com domain for its website? This smells like a hoax. --Calton | Talk 16:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The organization site is hosted on its own independent domain at ihroworld.org. The Strikingly post may or may not be of or by the organization, which is neither here nor there: secondary press coverage holds more weight than choice of blogging platforms. — 📦Datta 17:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulit Datta (talk • contribs)
 * It's a obvious warning sign that the claims of being a "global organization" are obvious bullshit -- not mention it's being used for the otherwise-source-free claims of some people being their "Global Ambassadors". --Calton | Talk 06:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Another source references Times of India. — 📦Datta 08:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, normally I'm all for being forgiven for entities where any sources are unlikely to be in English. But the best that we've come up with is a bunch of press releases and astroturf.  This does not notability make.  This smells very fishy to me.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:13, 11 March 2018 (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.