Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NESOHR


 * 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 clear consensus but a default keep. --Haemo 18:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

NESOHR

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable human rights organisation, hence fails WP:ORG. Once tagged with notability, but it was removed without obtaining the desired outcome. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  17:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

'''This is not a majority vote. If someone brought this page to your attention, or you brought this page to others' attention, please make a note of this fact here.''' While widespread participation is encouraged, the primary purpose of this page is to gauge consensus of a representative sample of Wikipedians; therefore, it's important to know whether someone is actively soliciting others from a non-neutral location to discuss. Such contributors are not prohibited from commenting, but it's important for the closing administrator or bureaucrat to know how representative the participants are of Wikipedians generally. See Canvassing.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletions.   -- -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪   walkie-talkie  17:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The NESOHR entry should not be deleted. NESOHR is the only local, independent human rights monitoring body in the NorthEast of Sri Lanka.  It has been active since 2004, and has published numerous reports that appear to be backed by thorough and legitimate investigative work.  True, NESOHR is not a large organization and its lack of resources hinders its work, but it does provide a notable contribution to the world's general awareness of the human rights situation in the NorthEast of Sri Lanka.  See its website, www.nesohr.org, for published reports.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangam Editor (talk • contribs) 05:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I got only, 138 google hits as "NESOHR", 61 as "NorthEast Secretariat On Human Rights" and 68 for "North East Secretariat On Human Rights". That count seems to be enough if these are Ghits regarding someone's biography. But here we're talking about a Human Rights organisation which says to be making reports and has serious interest in the human rights situation of a war affected country. So in that case I would like to argue on the notability which failed to be established in this article. User:Sangam Editor, I would like to mention that this organisation's official website has not working for a few weeks now. Thanks -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  10:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you sure, I got over 2000 hitsTaprobanus 20:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How about this? To see the exact number of Ghits we have to goto the last page of the google results. Seems you have to learn to search on Google even ha ;-) btw this's what I got when I searched excluding the wikipedia pages.-- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  05:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I know you are the computer expert here not me but 138 hits for an organization from a Third world country such as Sri Lanka in a region tht has no regular internet acesss that too founded only in 2004is not bad. Further we have to go by WP:ORG. A cursory look says that WP:RS sources such as Amnesty International, BBC and many notable Sri Lankan papers have written about this organization. If you think that such coverage from a third world country such as Sri Lanka is somehow below Wikipedia standrads. Then I have no mor arguments.ThanksTaprobanus 05:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete although worthy, this fails WP:ORG notability unproven. --Gavin Collins 08:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Keb25 10:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  15:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - non notable. HROs are dime a dozen these days, more so in troubled regions of the world... doesnt make all of them worthy of encyclopedia entries. Sarvagnya 23:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep NESHOR is the only Human rights group in the War Torn North Sri Lanka which operates from within that territory and similar is the case with other war zones not many organisations opreate  within them rather from outside them and further even Amnesty International  regards it as a human rights organisation.Now not all non Western organisations particularly  fom War torm have access to the Internet they have problems even for Food,water and medicine  is sufficient for a non Westeren local organisation  particurly coming from a War torn region.Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have proof that this is the only HR organization that operates from within the territory? And been "regarded by Amnesty international as a HR organization" does not make it notable. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 18:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Non notable organization. There are hundreds of Human Rights groups operating in Sri Lanka nowadays. The article fails to establish how this one is special amongst them.-- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 03:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Per WP:ORG A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable. The article as edited now has coverage of the organization by BBC, Amnesty International and Daily Mirror a notable Sri Lankan newspaper. If you look harder, you will even find more. It is a Stub so someone can improve it laterTaprobanus 20:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That pretty much says it all "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 18:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is trivial for you ?,, Taprobanus 12:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * One sentence, two sentences and one sentence about this organization in the refs provided. TRIVIAL -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 15:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not a trivial WP:ORG for Sri Lankans where it is functioning from Taprobanus 12:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - Certainly non-notable. Also there was no reason to remove notability tag. - KNM Talk 05:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong and Speedy delete - This article actually qualifies for speedy delete violating half of speedy delete criteria. Per nom. Gnanapiti 06:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - as explained by Taprobanus. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε†αLҝ 13:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep- People please go ahead and read WP:ORG carefully. This is very notable and passes WP:ORG for sure. Also per Taprobanus. Please stop quoting WP:ORG without fully reading it. Watchdogb 14:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - As per an editor's statement, it seems NESHOR is the only Human rights group in the War Torn North Sri Lanka which operates from within that territory and............. So it is important to have a page on NESOHR.Lustead 15:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "As per the editor's statement"? Since when are other editor's statements reliable? Do you have any proof to back that claim up? -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 18:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as above.Anwar 15:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Non notable organization, as explaind by the User:Snowolfd4. --Lanka07 16:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keepas per User:Lustead, agree could be interesting article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathanar (talk • contribs) 18:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong, speedy keep. This is absurd and surely must be occasioned by ulterior motives.  While not previously familiar with this organization, I took a moment and googled it.  There is ample and overwhelming evidence that the organization not only exists, but that it is recognized as "notable" by credible sources and news organizations.  This AfD is utter hogwash.  Furthermore, should this user persist in bringing additional articles treating Tamil or other ethnic Southeast Asian peoples up for AfD on such flimsy bases, perhaps the Wiki community should consider taking appropriate disciplinary action.  This appears to be POV harassment -- a deliberate effort to censor the content of the website.  It militates against the effort to make Wikipedia comprehensive, informative and global in the scope of its coverage of the world's cultures and ethnicities.  And it wastes our valuable time.  This kind of nonsense should not be tolerated.  deeceevoice 19:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable.Dineshkannambadi 21:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not notable? BBC and Amnesty International has quoated them. Can you explain that please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiality123 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that just getting quoted in some media (no matter how reputable the media is) doesn't necessarily establish notability. If the is the case, even I'm quoted in article in TOI. Do I deserve an article on me? Can you give me any link where the whole article is dedicated to NESOHR describing the organization, functionalities et al?? Gnanapiti 18:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * An organisation which is just about three years old and already recongnised as a noteworthy organisation on BBC and Amnesty International. You will need to think about it again. Just curious why I see always the same list of editors when it comes to deleting Tamil related articles!! ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε†αLҝ 19:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Recognized as noteworthy organization by BBC? You got to be kidding me. Are we reading different versions of BBC here? If you have anything to say about this deletion, please say it here. If you have to make such groundless accusations, please do that in an appropriate venue and perhaps I might consider answering there. Gnanapiti 21:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the article am talking about and I believe it is indeed BBC (correct me if am wrong). As far as the editors I see in all Tamil related articles, I didnt spell out any names, so no one need to answer that yet. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε†αLҝ 22:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There are more than 400 NGOs and INGOs that making false reports and activities to have to the sympathy of international community for the greed to the Dollars. So you are asking for have Wiki articles for all these Dollar cormorants? nah! you gotta be kidding. Please bear in mind that this NGO is operating from the Tamil Tigers administrative capitol (Kilinochchi) and it can't survive like this much of time without licking the Tigers's balls. Thanks -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  19:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * All you said is your POV. Isnt it? So you want to delete this article for POV?ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε<i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 19:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You know what? I don't worry even this article saves from this AfD because I have found some nice facts about this so called Human Rights Organisation and now I'm counting time to add those facts to the article. Regarding your comment on my POV.... what I have to say is, I know lots of things than any wikipedian regarding the NGOs and INGOs which operates in the war effected areas of the Island. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  20:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Then why dont you revert your vote to Keep if you have changed your mind ?. Thanks Taprobanus 13:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that will a very serious matter since I didn't vote yet :D -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  14:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

But your nomination is a Delete vote so you can still say under the nomination that you no longer endorse that view:)))Taprobanus 18:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But sir to get things right on fine print for the concluding admin to see that on bright light, your reasons are based on accusations that this organisation may be biased which is indeed POV. And even if it is biased, it needs to be part of the article rather than being deleted. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 22:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 15:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But what part of WP:NOTABLE does this fail ? Notable says Significant coverage with  Reliable sources  so for an organization with three year history what part of that does this stub does not satisfy ? For example see this coverage. It is a significant coverage in negative light of this organization is a significant newspaper in Sri Lanka. This apart from Amnesty International coverage.  I know Sri Lanka is not the United States and this paper is not the CNN but in wikipedia we don’t discriminate based on size do we ? I have already established that this stub satisfies WP:ORG. Thanks Taprobanus 12:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It fails notability for exactly same reasons you states here. Even a careful look at the google hits, we could see most of the hits in fact come from, either blogs, or pro-LTTE mouth pieces like tamil net  and etc. The the Reliability you talk here is NOT proven at all. Instead of giving blank arguments and putting your self in trouble, why dont you provide us, the news sources other than those tamil something sites, quote this as a reliable source ? News papers give the negative side of , frauds,robbers,rapers, pedophiles, even thought they are not notable.So your argument is flawed and does not prove the notability of this site. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 05:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The fact that the BBC, Amnesty, and the US State Department have made reference to this organisation's reports to my mind make it quite clearly, and obviously, notable. Notability isn't the same as being a Reliable Source(TM), and there's plenty of space in the article to address the (legitimate) issues that've been raised regarding its independence from the Tamil Tigers, or lack thereof. -- Arvind 16:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please give us reference where, BBC or Amnesty or any other organization, which has highlighted the activities of this organization ? Here people are proponents of the article failing miserably to give any evidence to show the notability. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 05:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Taprobanus has linked to the Amnesty report. Here's the BBC reporting on two NESOHR releases and here's a reference to the organisation in a State Government report. -- Arvind 14:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Those reports only have peripheral references to the organisation.  BBC Sinhala which is practically dedicated to covering the war produces all of 3 measly hits.  There are no references to this organisation at all in The Hindu which has covered this war from day one.  ditto with Indian Express.  There's practically no RS source that is dedicated this organisation.  News sources give peripheral and surrogate coverage to several things, but that doesnt mean they all automatically become worthy of encyclopedia entries.  Newspapers are newspapers and encyclopedias are encyclopedias. Sarvagnya 18:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a Sri Lankan organization that too found only in 2004, no need to find RS sources in India or Malawi. You will find RS sources within Sri Lanka1, 2 that have written extensively about it. Thanks Taprobanus 19:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)If you know of any sources from Malawi which cover it in just as much detail as The Hindu, feel free to use it. We should not do the discrimination against  the based on the country no?  I had heard that the media in Papua new guinea and Ivory Coast also cover this war extensively.  Could you please take a look?  huh.
 * And as for the dailynews source that you're waving, I thought you were screaming that the dailynews is unreliable just few weeks ago.  Or if it is reliable, can you please go ahead and add all its contents to the article?  I'm sorry .. you cant have the cake and eat it too.  Sarvagnya 20:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Daily news and screaming, in your haste to reply you must have confused me with some one elese:)))but anyway if you dont know by now already we have more than the Daily News as RS sources in Sri Lanka

. So have at it edit as you wish this after a free for all environment. Thanks Taprobanus 21:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We're clearly reading the policy very differently. I see nothing there that says that coverage in reliable sources should be "dedicated" to the organisation. My view, in essence, is that any organisation whose statements form the basis of more than one BBC report, and which is referred to in reports by the US State Department and Amnesty, meets WP's notability requirements. Note that there are scores of indigenous NGOs working in Sri Lanka which are not so cited, and whose notability I would not assert. --Arvind 20:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) From the first paragraph of the "Primary criterion" (emphasis mine)

A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable. Sarvagnya 20:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the word "dedicated" anywhere there. And, in point of fact, multiple independent sources have been cited.  I also fail to see how the reportes I cited are trivial or incidental. Mentions of the organisation in the context of the assassination of Pararajasingam are what I'd see as a trivial or an incidental reference.  A paragraph in a state government report which considers the reliability of the organisation given its links with the LTTE, BBC reports essentially reproducing its press statements, and the suchlike don't strike me as being either trivial or incidental. -- Arvind 13:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Arvind and Deecevoice. This is a local Lankan human rights organization and shouldn't be shut out. It look notable enough and has been in the news.  Human rights organization particularly from Sri Lanka shouldn't be removed from wikipedia just because there is a witchunt from ruling party circles to do so for political convenience.  Sinhala freedom 00:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you know the definition of a human right organization ? could you please provide the definition and then we can see whether this is actually a human right organization or not. Did you go through the WP:ORG before coming here to make your comments? Iwazaki  会話. 討論 05:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep NESOHR is a recognized legitimate human rights organization, unlike UTHR(J) which is nothing more than a propoganda machine for the GOSL. Wiki Raja 04:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * UTHR(J) is pro gov? Seems you need a break from editing brother, seriously :-) -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  05:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't surprise me why UTHR(J) is defended so much by folks who want to delete NESOHR. Wiki Raja 13:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah? does UTHR recently criticized LTTE? I think thats why you are really pissed off with the UTHR :D anyway I think you should notify Taprobanus that the UTHR(J) is a propaganda machine for the GoSL. Then at least he will stop using it. ;-) -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  14:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Now you deserve a barnstar just for this comment :DTaprobanus 14:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * hee hee hee :D :D -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  14:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It would not surprise me if you awarded Lahiru_k a barnstar. After all, you awarded our Bakasuprman a barnstar here. I guess birds of the feather flock together. Wiki Raja 05:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikiraja, I already gave Lahiru two barnstars, I am sure he cringed before displaying them but neverthless he does. You find compromises where you can, without that we will be warring endlesley. Baka helped me to make Sarathambal article as a DYK. He has voted against the conventional wisdom in many SL conflict related articles. Even Lahiru has changed his mind in this AFD nomination. Without appreciating such small gestures we cannot move forward. Just my opinion. The Barnstar comment was in tongue in cheek to let him know that UTHR comment was a hilarious attempt to get me not use them because a lot SL editors (not Lahiru) object to me using them because UTHR tends to tell the truth whether the killing was by the SL government (hence the objection) or by the LTTE (no objection). I know this is WP:SOAP. Taprobanus 14:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Looks nothing more than using Wikipedia for some ones propagandic activities. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 17:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. There are plenty of mentions in news -- at least some of these seem to be non-trivial. The article should pass Heyman Standard with some more sources. utcursch | talk 05:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - appears to meet notability guidelines to me. Dlabtot 05:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - as per dlabtot. Although might be clearer if better sources can be found in Tamil, Sinhalese or other languages. Greenshed 22:56, 19 September 2007 (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.