Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Students Islamic Organisation of India


 * 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. Remaining issues should be solved by editing / mergeto. Mango juice talk 14:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Students Islamic Organisation of India
There are no sources to back up any information present in the article other than the SIO Website. All the claims sourcing the SIO Website are touted as fact. The article is highly biased and POV and not backed up by any reliable media outlets or reputable news sources, nor does it contain any citations that satisfy Reliable Sources. In my opinion the article is highly unencyclopedic and full of garbage for what seems to be a non-notable organisationHkelkar 19:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep What is Did you do a simple Google search before moving for deletion.TerryJ-Ho 21:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC).OK for the information contained but this article can stay as stub.TerryJ-Ho
 * Comment: I did do a google search first. For me, all the results showed were the ISO website and articles about the charming people in Students Islamic Movement of India.Hkelkar 22:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:The article as it stands is unacceptable. At best, it must be deleted and started from scratch.Hkelkar 21:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and Wikify Rama's arrow  21:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject is notable.  Problems with article should be corrected, rather than the article deleted.  --BostonMA 21:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I do not entirely disagree that the subject matter is worthy of wikipedia. I just think that the article is so intensely POV that the best way is to delete and start from scratch.Hkelkar 21:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and Wikify/Cleanup - POV is not a basis for deletion. --Ragib 21:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:Some POV would not be, yes. But the article as it stands now is ALL POV and nothing but POV.Hkelkar 21:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment': I mean, "interfaith dialogues" through "Tea parties"? Surely you jest.Hkelkar 22:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Recent reports from the Times of India verifies the organisation's existence. If the current form of the article has POV, work towards cleaning that up. Relying on reliable, established sources, such as well known news media (ToI is one, to start with) should be the basis of the article. It is fine to scrap any existing unreferenced POV content. --Ragib 22:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Considering the POV nature of the current state, I suggest reverting to this version of the article, and add only information that can be backed by reliable sources. --Ragib 22:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment:That's a good idea actually.Others please add thoughts.Hkelkar 22:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * . Bear in mind that this move is, for all intents and purposes, a "deletion" and restart only so this debate is still valid.Hkelkar 22:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I just reverted to the older version, and started adding references. --Ragib 22:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Material which lacks verifiable reputable sources may be removed at any time. This does not require consensus.  The burden of providing reliable sources falls upon the editors who wish specific assertions to remain.  However, wholesale deletion may be interpreted as edit warring.  Unsupported statements need to be examined/deleted on a line-by-line basis.  --BostonMA 22:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I just removed all sentences that sound like opinion, and added references from books. Considering the recent press coverage, and availability of references, I think rewriting the article should be the best option. --Ragib 23:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - per Mughalstan consensus.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a difference ... this organization is for real, as supported by information from books published by the RAND Corporation, news articles from Times of India, for example. --Ragib 00:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite
I have re-written the article from scratch, and have added only references from reliable sources. The article is now in stub form, and please only add references from reliable sources when expanding it. Also, rather than being judgemental or subjective, please provide only information that is objective and can be backed by references from reliable sources. Thank you. --Ragib 00:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge into parent organization.--Peta 04:43, 19 September 2006 (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.