Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Rashtriya Manch


 * 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. Keep votes predominate and have stronger policy-based arguments, having found coverage in reliable sources. Suggest considering a merge outside of AfD process. (non-admin closure) buidhe 06:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Muslim Rashtriya Manch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Every sources are routine coverages. The article fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per WP:MILL, WP:NOTDIR, and WP:SOAP. This is yet another minor, local charity, which probably does good work, but we're not a directory nor a soap-box. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This source, for example, is far from "routine coverage". I am concerned about the speed at which this user sends articles for deletion and whether they are actually conducting a WP:BEFORE. This is one of the three articles they AfD'd in eight minutes and another user expressed a similar concern on their talk page last month.  Dee  03  03:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 *  Delete  per WP:MILL, WP:NOTDIR, and WP:SOAP. The org fails WP:ORGCRIT to have a separate page. The HT link posted by Dee03 is an interview of the president of this organisation and hence it cannot be used to claim notability. The bar is much higher in ORGCRIT.  D Big X ray ᗙ  19:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC) Changing my vote to merge with Sangh Parivar as its parent organization-- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly a notable organization. The fact that you might dislike the organization is irrelevant in an AfD debate. --Soman (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep It is pretty clear with sources like       that there is evidence of sufficient significant coverage to merit a standalone page. In fact, this organization's petition against Triple talaq in India was signed by over a million Muslims  and the entity seems to have received widespread media attention from across the world  . Besides, not-for-profit organizations need not meet ORGCRIT.  Dee  03  19:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * [1] is an opinion piece.
 * [2] a short article that mentions some of the works of the org.
 * [3] (posted a second time in this thread) an interview of the president of this organisation and hence it cannot be used to claim notability
 * [4] acceptable source focussing on the spread of the org in Kashmir
 * [5] acceptable
 * [6], [7], [8], [10] are again WP:ROUTINE news articles with interview of office holders.
 * [9] to some extent appears acceptable but it mostly focuses on the interview of the office bearers.
 * Kautilya3 your link below doesnt work, please fix the link. I think MRM should be merged to RSS or to Sangh Parivar if it survives the AfD-- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Going by your comment, this organization breezes past the alternate criteria for non-commercial organizations. Moving on... Dee  03  21:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Moreover, as pointed out elsewhere, WP:ROUTINE only applies to the notability of events, so it should not be used as an argument on notability of individuals and organizations. --Soman (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Dee03, MRM is a Muslim WP:BRANCH of RSS, so it still needs an independent notability pass if it has to exist as a seperate article, and I don't see how it breezes past the criteria. Soman, if you dont want WP:ROUTINE to be invoked, then please do not use routine coverage of events in the newspapers. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Asking us to evaluate this using BRANCH has become slightly repetitive and redundant at this point, given that BRANCH is being cited incorrectly to begin with. As demonstrated by multiple editors, this organization is notable on its own, unlike recently deleted ones like BJYM Karnataka and BJYM Mumbai, which were indeed examples of BRANCH, i.e., individual chapters of national and international organizations. MRM passes the alternate criteria by satisfying two (NONPROFIT and GNG), if not all three, of the notability requirements outlined there. Dee  03  08:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - I was vacillating till now, but I see that has made a pretty persuasive argument. Andersen & Damle's recent book is said to have a detailed coverage of this organisation as well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The organization has received significant source coverage (including national newspapers) of the largest English-speaking country in the world. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - between the sources and Dee's reasoning, notability seems to be established. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable WP:BRANCH of an organisation. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Not only that org fails on notability, it fails on verifiability as well. If it somehow survives AfD, it should be merged into RSS or any of its affiliate articles with some clarifications, pronto (entire string on RSS articles suffers from extreme nationalism bias and POV problems, lacking basic info and context).- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  17:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:GNG, the WP:THREE are: Chapter 6 of the book linked above by Walter K. Andersen and Shridhar D. Damle published in 2019 by C. Hurst & Co. and distributed in the US by Oxford University Press, The Economic Times 2015, and Deutsche Welle 2017 . Put "Muslim Rashtriya Manch" into WP:RSSE or Google News and there is a lot of other coverage, e.g., India Today 2019 , Indo-Asian News Service via The New Indian Express 2019 , and Newslaundry 2016 (not sure if that one is an RS). I also think this Hindustan Times 2014 article counts as GNG because it is both an interview and also independent reporting in the journalist's own voice. I also think The Washington Post 2019 opinion piece  counts for notability even if it's opinion. But even without the HT and WaPo, and take out the routine or otherwise questionable stuff, this is still a GNG keep based on the sourcing out there. Levivich  20:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Leviv I have reviewed the links and I note that all of them are referring it as RSS body,
 * RSS backed Muslim Rashtriya Manch on ... (In its title)
 * ...some Muslims have joined the RSS, a hardline... (in its opening line)
 * RSS wing reaches out to Muslims (in its title)
 * This RSS body is a bridge between Muslims and Sangh(in its title)
 * RSS is a notable organisation and these appear to be dependent coverage based on the popularity of RSS as it is a WP:BRANCH of RSS. Accordingly I have changed my vote from Delete to Merge with Sangh Parivar (also fine with a merge with RSS) as I think we should have the info about this wing of RSS somewhere. Sangh Parivar being the umbrella term for RSS organizations. seems to be the best alternative the other being Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh D Big X ray ᗙ  08:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m not surprised that every source discussing MSM also discuss RSS since MSM is part of RSS, but although RSS is mentioned, the articles I linked to are in-depth coverage of MSM, not RSS, and that’s why I think it should be kept (although I see it as a WP:PAGEDECIDE/WP:PAGESIZE issue more than a notability issue, so I’m not terribly opposed to a merge). Levivich (lulz) 23:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Levivich, These links are actually introducing it as RSS wing and talking about MRM in context of RSS. All these articles make it clear that they consider the reader to be familiar with RSS and unfamiliar with MRM. Had MRM been notable to merit a separate article, the media would have jumped into discussing MRM exclusively. RSS page, I note that has "readable Prose size (text only) = 52 kB (8592 words) so clearly RSS article is not WP:TOOBIG per the WP:PAGESIZE. regarding WP:PAGEDECIDE, I would say that it actually suggests to merge since MRM so far has basically been a messenger for the RSS to communicate RSS' policies to the muslim masses. There is no major work that can be discussed in this exclusive article and the reader is better served by reading about MRM as a section in RSS. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Had MRM been notable to merit a separate article, the media would have jumped into discussing MRM exclusively. As for whether it’s better for the reader for the articles to be merged or not, that’s an editorial decision that should be discussed on the talk page of RSS per our usual merge discussion procedure. This AFD nom is based on the argument that the subject fails GNG and NORG. I think the sources disprove that. So it’s a keep. The fact that it could be merged doesn’t make it not-a-keep. Literally every article that meets GNG could be merged. I don’t really like discussing mergers at AFDs, because watchers of the RSS article may not even be aware of this AFD. So you can argue merge until you’re blue in the face, it won’t change my mind that this article topic meets GNG. That opinion of mine is based on the sourcing, not on arguments about merger, because whether an article should be merged has little to do with whether an article meets GNG, as explained in PAGEDECIDE. Levivich (lulz) 17:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per above and WP:INHERITORG. Relevant informatin should be added to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep this organisation seems to be independently notable, as it has taken part in multiple significant actions that were independently reported on. --Slashme (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2020 (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.