Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Indonesia Forum


 * 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) &mdash; Music1201  talk  22:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

International Indonesia Forum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a non-notable HOAX about a claimed "organisation" which is actually and self-admittedly, a non-organisation, see WHOIS of iif.or.id which has been created and maintained by a "trusted" Indonesia based editor /admin of Wikipedia to self promote this non-organisation with which he has undeclared WP:COI as its COO Mohsinpathania (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as article writer. Yes, I have a declared COI with the IIF. I have noted this on the talk page. There are numerous secondary sources cited, including a highly negative review of a book published by the forum (if this were meant for promotion, I would not include that, now would I?). Notability is shown. And a "hoax"? Really? Did you even check the sources? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please clarify the following kindly. A) What is the registration status of your organisation, ie. aere you a registered society, trust etc. B) What is your designation in the organisation ? Your "secondary" sources seem to be either local news (Indonesian language usually digital newspapers) and unreliable merely reproducing your press release handouts, or directly connected with you and self-written on your own website or indirectly linked sources (eg. Yale.edu) and not independent ones. Another problem is too many expired web-links for citations showing that notability of these events is transient or tenuous or indicative of a well planned Wikipedia hoax spanning many years. Mohsinpathania (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Delete' Per Whois. Justinzilla   ROA R R! ! 05:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep We do seem to have enough significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. There's no reason to dismiss "Indonesian language usually digital newspapers" -- where else should we expect the bulk of coverage to be? Google Translate makes it possible to easily check these and let's beware of WP:Systemic bias. To be an Indonesian org. covered in Indonesian is perfectly acceptable. I have found enough -- as well as the three English Gnews hits I see linked to above -- to meet my benchmark for significant, multiple coverage. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – I'm not sure exactly what is meant by the "non organization" line in the WHOIS report, but it seems a bit outlandish to me to take it at face value and say it's evidence that the subject is "not an organization" or a fake organization. I can see it as an abbreviated form of "non-profit" organization or "non-governmental" organization. Regardless, the registration line in a WHOIS isn't nearly as authoritative as published, reliable sources. We need to read the WHOIS line in context with the sources, and we need to follow the lead of what the reliable sources say. The provided sources here and here in Republika demonstrate that this isn't purely an invention by a Wikipedian. Beyond that, the relevant notability guideline is WP:ORG, which is satisfied by the presentation of multiple independent reliable sources in the article that provide in-depth coverage of the topic—see the two sources in Republika, MetroTV News, Okezone. Note that link rot will happen naturally with any source found online – archived URLs do not make the source any less credible than when it was published, and they are certainly not indicative of some contrived hoax. Also note that self-published sources may be used under certain conditions as sources of information about themselves, as it is done here. Mz7 (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the clear malice of the nomination. This was the third of —the nominator's first nontrivial contribution to Wikipedia—concerning articles with declared ties to administrators or Wikimedia personnel that began two days after the nominator as an account "used exclusively for disruption." The nominator's assertion that an administrator has an undeclared COI is patently false: it's stated on the article's talk page (declared April 9, 2016). Per WP:POINT, we cannot allow our processes to be subverted to exact vengeances. On the merits, I disagree as well. Most likely, the WHOIS "non organization" statement is a translation mistake, a term of art (perhaps for a non-profit or an organization without a significant internal network), or an entry made by a hosting company without the subject's knowledge. Additionally: (1) WHOIS is not a reliable source; (2) WHOIS is insufficient to disprove the organization's existence when weighted against other evidence; and (3) the fact that it's registered suggests that it does exist. If I write a letter that asserts that I don't exist, would anyone believe me? Would we delete a BLP as a hoax if its subject posted on her Twitter account that she was a "non-person"?   Rebb  ing   05:32, 3 May 2016 (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.