Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persecution Relief


 * 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 consensus.  Sandstein  08:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Persecution Relief

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability is not met, including all the citations sourced to non-RS. — Wiki Linuz  ( 💬 ) 12:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. Maniik 🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me. 13:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep There are a lot of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I am providing a few of them in source assessment table.


 * OZY (media company) — No discussion in WP:RSN yet, also reportedly a controversial one WP:RSEDITORIAL.
 * National Herald — Not a RS for its pro-INC bias, fails WP:NPOV, previous discussion.
 * America (magazine) — A pro-Catholic magazine, fails WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. See previous discussion.
 * Christian Broadcasting Network — pro-Christian, conservative bias, fails WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. See previous discussion.
 * Church Times — A Christian news organization, fails WP:NPOV and WP:DUE in coverage. See previous discussion If a news org. is RS in one category such as "Christian music" doesn't make it RS in reporting controversial info in another category. You'll need reliable NPOV (non pro-Church or pro-Christian related) paper quoting them.
 * Only WP:SCMP meets the criteria, however, it's only referenced for quoting a statistics, [...] Persecution Relief reported a 59.6 per cent rise in hate crimes against Christians from 2016 to 2019 [...], hence WP:UNDUE weight to a single source. — Wiki Linuz  ( 💬 ) 18:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The CBN source is the one listed in Christian music, NOT Church Times. I fundamentally disagree with your mis-application of WP:BIASED here. Wouldn't The Guardian or MSNBC be able to count as a reliable source for purposes of notability of a center-left politician? Why would it be different here? WP:NPOV applies to articles, not to sources. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The CBN source is the one listed in Christian music, NOT Church Times. I fundamentally disagree with your mis-application of WP:BIASED here. Wouldn't The Guardian or MSNBC be able to count as a reliable source for purposes of notability of a center-left politician? Why would it be different here? WP:NPOV applies to articles, not to sources. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - I agree with the nominator. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that the South China Morning Post is not an RS? The nom statement is that there are no citations that are RS. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I strongly disagree with 's analysis as to why several of the in-depth sources do not count towards significant coverage owing to "bias". The editors states multiple times that the sources are biased and thus fail WP:NPOV, but this is fatally flawed in light of WP:BIASED, which states that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Simply put, it is not the case that religiously affiliated papers are considered by the community to be inherently unreliable; The Jewish Chronicle is currently listed as WP:GREL at RSP, as is Deseret News. In particular:
 * The link given by for the alleged unreliability of Church Times does not actually describe that news organization. Rather, Falls Church Times is the source discussed in the RSN archive given, which is described in the conversation as a "community newspaper". I don't think there's any reasonable way to conclude that Church Times fits that bill except by completely misreading that RSN discussion. Rather, Church Times appears to be a >150-year-old WP:NEWSORG focused on the Anglican Church.
 * The RSN discussion that focuses on America (magazine) is not about the source's general reliability, but rather the specific reliability of a podcast published by the magazine's parent company. And, while it's certainly run by the Jesuits, that doesn't actually mean that it serves as a propaganda outlet for the teachings that proceed from the Catholic Church's magisterial authority. It's definitely got a Jesuit bias, but it also seems to be typically reliable for factual reporting, just like any other WP:NEWSORG.
 * The 2011 RSN discussion of Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) doesn't seem to reflect community use of the source. A more recent RSN discussion generally seems to have found that the source's reliability is context-dependent. The source is listed as reliable WP:WikiProject Christian music/Sources, for example, though editors would not use it for facts on evolution. There are some issues with the depth of this source (it appears to be about persecution of religious minorities in India more than the organization itself), but it's moot in light of the above two plus the SCMP source.
 * And, there are more sources that appear to give in-depth coverage, including Vatican News. I'm also seeing its persecution reports being referenced all over the place, from Asia Times to Business Standard to The Tablet and many, many more.
 * Overall, based upon sources in this thread, the organization appears to clearly meet WP:NGO. The group's activities are on a national scope, and Persecution Relief has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are editorially independent of their non-profit organization. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

-  SUN EYE 1  11:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete According to analyzing sources, doesn't qualify any notability guidelines. Seddiq Sabri 22:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NGO as demonstrated above by Mikehawk10 and DMySon above. I can find many WP:RS including US government sources reporting about the organization's role in covering Violence against Christians in India.   . Another WP:TOI source.
 * Keep There are enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources, passes WP:GNG.Mahdiar86 (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per Mikehawk. The suggestion that coverage in CBN has to be ignored because it is "pro-Christian" is absurd and harmful to the encyclopedia. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 01:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The WP:NGO dictates the that multiple reliable sources independent of the NGO should abide WP:COISOURCE to establish notability. Hence, we eliminate the publications which are proven to be having undeniable pro-Christian or pro-Church POV. WP:BIASEDSOURCES isn't used to establish notability, rather it's for usage in articles. Coming back to CBN's video source, at 22:23 you can see clearly the source stand to benefit from a shared POV, which violates the specific independence policy. All the sources which stick to NPOV and independent policies doesn't provide significant coverage about the NGO, and solely quoting statistics isn't "significant coverage" either see WP:SIGCOV#1.2 and WP:SPIP. WikiLinuz  ( talk ) 00:59, 18 October 2021 (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.