Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Indian Students Union UK

National Indian Students Union UK

 * 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. I took into account the arguments and input that were from non-involved and non-invested users that were not using multiple accounts, and did not significantly contribute to the article's creation or arguments/disputes during the process. These users established that notability is not met (per WP:GNG), and that the majority of the reliable sources cited or found were not covering this article subject as it's main topic of material, but notable people that made mention of the article subject instead.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is regarding an organization which is not really notable, and the article is biased. Rd897 (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

*Delete It reads like a promo and relies upon mostly primary sources. Imalawyer (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Striking vote by blocked sockpuppet account  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a promo just written by the said organization and their representatives in a promotional way to big their own causes. Lack of notability for a small student group. --Rd897 (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * To all making a decision on this page, please may I request your attention on the below. Thank you. Also: Ajf773, Exemplo347ImalawyerShawn in Montreal

The user rd897 seems to have some sort of personal problem against the said organisation, which as you are aware has not spared them sharing private details of individuals on wikipedia, causing potential harm to them (specifically, user Mohanish Borana and Sanam Arora). This is made all the more concerning by the fact that they are using wikipedia to delete only two pages - National Indian Students Union UK and Sanam Arora, and that is their only contribution to Wikipedia. Should they be allowed to use a platform such as Wikipedia to take out what seems are personal issues?

Regarding the actual notability of the organisation, please note the below:

1. There are 5 patrons of this organisation, including a former United Nations Secretary General (Dr Shashi Tharoor), a member of UK parliament (Rt Hon Virendra Sharma MP), Former Deputy High Commissioner of India to UK (Dr Virander Paul) and an Indian Education Minister (Mr Ram Bilas Sharma). These senior figures have joined the organisation to support its good work and further its vision.

2. There are multiple high profile supporters of this organisation, including its Honorary Fellows - Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (international peace-maker and spiritual guru), Dr SY Quraishi (former Chief Election Commissioner of India), Mr Javed Akhtar (Member of Parliament, India and Indian cinema legendary figure) and Mrs Shabana Azmi (Social activist and Indian cinema legendary figure).

3. This organisation is the only such organisation which is repeatedly engaged in advisory services by the Indian Government on matters relating to young Indian students and youth in the UK. All of this is made evident by various links to Indian government owned websites such as https://pbdindia.gov.in/session-report-5 - you will note that NISAU's president is the only UK student/alumni representative.

4. This organisation has been engaged by the Mayor of London to conduct exclusive research into experiences of Indian students in the UK.

5. This organisation to show some examples, has been called upon by: - UK Parliament's All Party Parliamentary Groups (see http://www.appgmigration.org.uk/sites/default/files/APPG_PSW_Inquiry_Report-FINAL.pdf) - Westminster Policymaking forums (see http://www.westminsterforumprojects.co.uk/forums/slides/Sanam_Arora_International_Students.pdf) - Scottish Government (see http://news.gov.scot/news/scotlands-colleges-back-return-of-post-study-work-visa) - Indian High Commission in UK (see https://www.hcilondon.in/gallery.php?album=1794)

6. This organisation is featured in top Indian and UK newspapers for its work. Some recent examples include: - http://indianexpress.com/article/india/uk-must-remove-obstacles-faced-by-indian-students-shashi-tharoor/ - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/britain-indian-students-easier-uk-post-brexit-india-visa-relations-shashi-tharoor-kerala-mp-diplomat-a7623551.html - http://www.hindustantimes.com/education/visa-policies-for-indians-in-the-uk-must-focus-on-post-study-work-opportunities/story-MTGpTgoYvgSE8mTeBORoXJ.html

7. The President of the organisation was recently awarded the India UK thought leadership award for her work with the organisation. Please note that a fellow recipient of the same award was the Deputy Mayor of London. See some coverage by the Times: - https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/uk-india-relationship-at-risk-as-student-numbers-slide - https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/anglo-indian-ties-strained-student-visa-policy

I hope the few points above are enough to prove the claims made by user rd897 that accompany their deletion request, as baseless:

" The article is regarding an organization which is not really notable, and the article is biased " - a. User Mohanish explained (that rd897 later deleted), the presence of the organisation in more than 25 universities covering all 4 countries of the United Kingdom. In fact, the Northern Ireland wing of the organisation was launched by the Mayor of Belfast and the British Council. See - https://asianlite.com/news/uk-news/nisu-floats-n-ireland-chapter/

b. Notability is very explicit given the points above and, note most of these are stated on the wikipedia page for the organisation anyway This is a promo just written by the said organization and their representatives in a promotional way to big their own causes. Lack of notability for a small student group

a. This seems like a personal attack on the representatives of the organisation. Wikipedia should not allow its wonderful platform to be used to propagate such negativity

b. I don't agree that the article is written like a promo, but if rd897 feels that way, their view was respected and taking that into account user mohanish modified the text accordingly. rd897 reversed these changes instead of acknowledging that their views had been respected. Also note they didn't help in the first place by editing the page such that their views were taken into account. They simply want it deleted and are not helping either the cause of the organisation nor that of Wikipedia

c. A "small student group" is just factually incorrect. Small groups don't have presence in 5 countries - i.e. all 4 of the UK, and India. nor are they called upon by governments and supported by such senior figures. Even if the organisation was indeed "small", there is no reason for the great work being done by the organisation to not be shared with current, past and future Indian students who greatly appreciate all the work the organisation does to help and represent them. Note this is all done for free (as noted on the NISAU website). Not sure what "own causes" rd897 seems to be alluding to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Histbp1234 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rd897: The UK-wide presence of the organisation is described explicitly to remove contention of its notability. NISAU has its presence in 25 major universities of the UK including LSE, King's, Westminster, Warwick, SOAS, Manchester, Belfast, Edinburgh and prominent figures including members of parliament of both UK and India, Ministers, CBEs, Global icons in arts and spirituality are associated with it. What bias is seen in the content? Being an apolitical and non-religious organisation, no ideology is biasedly presented nor it only talked about the UK or India. When the issues that Indian students face was listed in the article, it was accompanied by the condemnation of visa-abuses.

@Imalawyer: Proper referencing is done and a lot of external sources are listed now. Language is altered too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MohanishB (talk • contribs) 07:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Note for closing admin: please refer to these SPI's which show MohanishB, Histbp1234, MohanishBora and MohanishBorana to be engaged in meatpuppetry and socks of each other. Sockpuppet investigations/MohanishB and Sockpuppet investigations/MohanishB/Archive and hence important to disregard this 'keep' vote below. The consensus is for delete. --Rd897 (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Organisation meets all criteria for Non Commercial Organisation i.e.
 * STRONG KEEP


 * 1. Scope of work is trans-national in scale. The organisation operates in 5 countries - all 4 countries of UK and India. The Northern Irish chapter of the organisation was launched by [[British Council] and Mayor of Belfast.]
 * 2. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. E.g. Scottish Government (see http://news.gov.scot/news/scotlands-colleges-back-return-of-post-study-work-visa), mainstream UK media (see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/britain-indian-students-easier-uk-post-brexit-india-visa-relations-shashi-tharoor-kerala-mp-diplomat-a7623551.html, https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/anglo-indian-ties-strained-student-visa-policy), mainstream Indian media (http://www.hindustantimes.com/education/visa-policies-for-indians-in-the-uk-must-focus-on-post-study-work-opportunities/story-MTGpTgoYvgSE8mTeBORoXJ.html, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/education/brexit-blow-uk-loses-its-sheen-as-most-popular-study-destination-for-indians/articleshow/56837907.cms, http://www.sundayguardianlive.com/world/6625-conservatives-host-transforming-india-roundtable)


 * Would emphasise 2b and 2d as per WP:SKCRIT.


 * No reasons for deletion met per WP:DEL-REASON.


 * Would recommend nominator be banned for vandalism per WP:VAN. Nominator has made no other contribution to Wikipedia other than personal attacks on President and Secretary of the organisation, they have even been warned for privacy breaches per WP:PA. Instead of helping meet the goal of Wikipedia by editing and improving the page, they keep nominating it under baseless grounds for deletion. See WP:ATD. Wikipedia is not a platform for personal attacks per WP:PA.


 * It is to be noted that the nominator reversed improvements made to the article following their own comments. This makes their negative intentions explicit.

--Histbp1234 (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If any concerns remain about advertising / promotion, then contributors are recommended to edit.


 * I thought it should be noted that the United Kingdom is one country. --Rd897 (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a new account made only to comment on this. I would guess perhaps a sock of User:MohanishB, User:MohanishBorana, and User:MohanishBora all of which are blocked. --Rd897 (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This user has also got around the auto-confirmed protection by making minor changes to a lot of pages, see here for account creation and here for user contributionshas created another account, probably for the same purpose if required by them, in a few days' time. --Rd897 (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please Assume Good Faith - after all, some might say you only created your account to nominate two articles for deletion. It's irrelevant. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Will not indulge in pointless accusations. My account is not a sock of User:MohanishB. I find it hypocritical user rd897 is indulging in personal attacks on my contributions, when their own account is publicly evident to have only been created to vandalise this organisation and its office bearers. Their own contributions are only to repeatedly attack the organisation, see rd897 contributions here.


 * Ajf773 please may I draw your attention here? Can you see the conflict of interest with user rd897? If their sole motive (as is evident by their contributions) is to defame an organisation, then how can their accusations and justifications hold any merit? Really welcome your guidance here. Histbp1234 (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a wonderful platform, and we should seek to improve what we can on it, not fight pointless wars. I also notice that despite two different editors removing your multiple votes, neither of which are allowed given you nominated the page for deletion in the first place, you have reversed User:Bbb23's comments and voted again. Please respect your fellow editors, and wikipedia policies.--Histbp1234 (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing in this article suggests the subject meets all the notability requirements. Sources are hardly independent (ie Youtube) and the whole article is written in a promotional tone. Ajf773 (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete-Subject fails to pass WP:GNG.Most of the mentions in WP:RS are because of the high profile of the subjects dealt with. Winged Blades Godric 12:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I will like to defend the page on WP:GNG requirements.
 * Reliable: 1. There are a lots of secondary references including prominent news dailies of India and the UK, Westminster forum projects (ref 26-29), Scottish government (ref 32-33).
 * Significant coverage: Official Consulate General of India website lists NISAU at top of all students association.
 * This is a very important point. Official Government agencies are listing this organsation and inviting them to international events to deliver addresses. This should be enough on its own merit to justify notability.Histbp1234 (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources: Yes the high profile people takes major share of the news coverage for obvious reason but comment from Winged Blades Godric clearly acknowledge many high profile people are part of the organisation in various capacity (Patrons, Advisors or Honorary Fellows) which indirectly proves its notability because why would otherwise MPs, Baroness, CBE, former Ministers, Former UN Under secretary etc will link to a organisation?
 * Independent of the subject: Presence on Westminster Forum and Scottish Government or CGI is because of its work and are not produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.
 * Ajf773 (talk) if you find the article of promotional language, the article can be amended accordingly as per Wiki policy but that should not entitle to its deletion given it is a notable organisation in the UK. MohanishB (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * MohanishB. But can it be rewritten to satisfy the notability requirements? I think not. Ajf773 (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ajf773 the page has been re-written. Any guidance on any further improvements needed would be most welcome.Histbp1234 (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Ajf773, that the article should be deleted. I think you've set out the reasons coherently. --Rd897 (talk) 08:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As nominator, you may indeed restate your preference but per WP:AFDFORMAT please don't repeatedly bold your !vote, thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Neil N  talk to me 13:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2017 (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.