Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Afghanistan Pakistan People's Friendship Association

This discussion was moved from the main AFD page to aid readability.


 * We are not really discussing the meaning of the word "notable" here, rather WP:ORG was cited in the context of notability policy for organizations in Wikipedia. Also, why the organization should be notable is not our concern here. Whether it IS notable or NOT, is the main question. You are free to AFD the articles you cited above.


 * You also mention six "references" ... let's see what they are: ref #3 is actually the biography of a speaker in a talk, and it trivially mentions that this speaker is affiliated with this organization. This reference is quite misleadingly used to make it seem that the organization does this or that ... but all the reference says is that the speaker giving the talk did this or that. This trivial mention doesn't count as anything.


 * Reference 4 is a news report on a local seminar organized by the organization. (this is the same seminar/conference as ref 2). Nothing special or significant. Ref 6 also refers to the same event. Reference 7 seems to be alluding to the same event.


 * These references does nothing to establish the notability of this organization. Thousands of such reports of seminars/symposiums are published in newspapers everyday, that alone does not make an organization notable. --Ragib (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, please DO NOT canvass to stack the votes in AFDs. --Ragib (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not an attempt to canvas, this article was mentioned by another user complaining of its deletion, I recreated and then noted in the same place where I became aware of the article that it was up for deletion. I did also add "Maybe I am interpreting the above wrong, or maybe I am right, make your views known". I did NOT say "please stop this deletion". If you think this is canvassing then that is your opinion. Pahari Sahib  20:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay here is my response to your claims about the references I have provided.
 * #3 the ref says "He is also one of the founders of the Afghanistan-Pakistan Friendship Association. In this role, Khattak has been one of the most outspoken advocates for the protection of Afghan refugees in Pakistan, challenging government policies and practices aimed at deporting existing refugees and curbing further inflows". I don't see how this is trivial or misleading, as the source says Kattak helped create the organisation and in his role within the organisation he is one the most outspoken advocates for the protection of refugees.


 * #2 is not the same as #4, ref 2 was about the Conference on Sustainable Repatriation of Afghan refugees-Chitral in September 2007. Ref 4 was about the Association demanding the government of Pakistan and Iran keep a check on anti Karzai groups threatening to destabilise Afghanistan - this was in October 2002. They are from different websites with different subject matter and content, the one thing they do have in common is that they mention the Afghanistan-Pakistan Peoples Friendship Association.


 * #6 is not the same event either, it is from June 2003, and was a conference in the city of Karachi - criticising (amongst other things) government action in FATA.


 * #7 is actual about "Visa rules relaxation for Afghans sought," Dawn, 12 December 2002" as the page makes clear


 * Furthermore by placing the word "references" in quotes you appear to be trying prejudice a visitor to this page against the article. If you had just said you believed these references to be inadequate or not substantive enough then ok. If you want to criticise the article then fine, but please be careful and do not claim all the refs are about the same event when the dates in the sources are different and mention different location or make other misleading remarks about them. One final thing, you said that we are not here to discuss the meaning of notability, I was not talking about a dictionary definition of notability but that listed at WP:ORG - again I quote from it "however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favouring larger organizations"


 * Pahari Sahib 22:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I stand by my comment about the speaker biography that you have applied to as the role of the organization. Quoting from the article, "The aims of the association are to promote various issues such as refugees[2], free trade zones, education, landmines, and poverty, as well as challenging government policies [3]." You used the speaker biography sentence ""He is also one of the founders of the Afghanistan-Pakistan Friendship Association. In this role, Khattak has been one of the most outspoken advocates for the protection of Afghan refugees in Pakista" as a justification for this claim about the organization's role, this is misleading and false.


 * You also mention WP:ORG. I never said size is an issue here, rather NOTABILITY is the main issue. The Friendship association could very well have been a 3 person organization ... as long as it is covered in depth by multiple independent sources, then it can be very notable. The only "references" (and yes, I use quotes here as you can't pass a single sentence on a the biography of a speaker at an NN-talk/group meeting as a reference for the organization) you have managed for this organization are newspaper reports of meetings convened by it, seminars etc. For your benefit, I also quote from 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."


 * Your reference 3 and 7 are nice examples of "trivial coverage". Just because there is a page in the Internet where the name of this organization is mentioned in the passing does not make it a secondary-source-coverage.


 * Finally, NGO Websites like ref #2 and #7 are not reliable sources.


 * The scarcity of detailed coverage of this organization (other than one liner, or short news blurbs about a seminar organized by it) just attests to its non-notability. --Ragib (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, though I disagree with your analysis, this has better rational than your original remarks, when you erroneously claimed three references were about the same event in order to pass the afd. But where does it say in RS not to use NGOs as a source? - the article has several sources, though perhaps one or two alone wouldn't be good, collectively I do believe is proof enough Pahari Sahib  23:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is upto *you* to establish the notability of the organization, and reliability of your references, not upto me. An Non-notable NGO website is definitely NOT a reliable source. --Ragib (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say it was up to you, I did say however I disagreed with some of the things you were saying. Pahari Sahib  23:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, per CANVASS, "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.". Please DO NOT attempt vote stacking by selective canvassing. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I again ask you to read what I have actually written, if they are in anyway in violation of what you claim then remove the words. Pahari Sahib  23:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion he was not votestacking since he never "selectively" notified any editors. He never went around certain Wikipedia members and told them about this on their talk pages. As the topic was already under consideration he was adding a link to it here so people could post their views. So its unfair that you should repeatedly accuse him of votestacking espically here, where this discussion is suppose to be about AfD. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)