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 article is written like advertisement and I should have opted for speedy delition. The sources listed seems to be self published by caste organisation.
[1]Unacceptable unencyclopaedic fonts and the editor seems to be closely associated with the organisation. Also I doubt
WP:VWP:POV issue are there. I tried to clean it up but reverted back continuously by the main author to unencyclopaedic version.
Heba Aisha (
talk) 05:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete This a caste based advocacy group that fails
WP:ORGCRIT. Although there are some passing mentions in some article, that is expected from an advocacy group. Some of it is clearly press statements. --
Walrus Ji (
talk) 13:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete: Not seeing now
WP:ORGCRIT is being met. Lots of sources that are passing mentions, from connected sources or just pure puffery. This article is probably better than their website at promoting them, and the obvious COI editor is
WP:OWNing the article and preventing edits that would help with
WP:NPOV. I'm just not seeing enough in-depth sources though. Ravensfire (
talk) 14:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - the article is on a more than century old foundation and notable and largest organization representing
Kshatriyas and
Rajputs in India since year 1897. it has been hijacked by some POV & puffery pushing editors, what it needs strong page protection and blocking of editors like
[2]. I have again done clean up. Thanks
Jethwarp (
talk) 14:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Jethwarp, You are using their claims about establishment year as fact. Such groups are known to inflate figures. I would not believe any word written in their website unless the facts are vouched by a reliable source. Talking of RS, which are the ORGCRIT satisfying sources you found?
Walrus Ji (
talk) 14:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)reply
[3] search results for अखिल भारतीय क्षत्रिय महासभा google books — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jethwarp (
talk •
contribs)
Passing mentions do not help in passing
WP:ORGCRIT, if you have strong reliable, third party source with significant coverage, then please present.
Walrus Ji (
talk) 17:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)reply
SupprtWalrus Ji, most of the content have been derived from the caste organisation's website itself and the dubious websites. The third party independent sources have only passing mention.
Heba Aisha (
talk) 18:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment' not a single citation is from website of of organization or other website. And to be correct your opening statement I should have opted for speedy delition is false. Your speedy deletion request was already declined earlier
[4] also the problemetic editor has been blocked
[5]Jethwarp (
talk) 15:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted after discussion at
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 January 12. Note that there seem to be shenanigans going on here;
Walrus Ji was blocked by ArbCom for reasons unknown to me.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment the article is a strong keep as per my arguments in deletion review I have already cited the third party soruces confirming the notability of organiztion - any one can check deletion review page , thanks
Jethwarp (
talk) 11:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
SpartazHumbug! 08:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep Passes
WP:GNG, there is plenty of coverage
here. Article has been significantly improved since nom.
SailingInABathTub (
talk) 10:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)reply
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.
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 article is written like advertisement and I should have opted for speedy delition. The sources listed seems to be self published by caste organisation.
[1]Unacceptable unencyclopaedic fonts and the editor seems to be closely associated with the organisation. Also I doubt
WP:VWP:POV issue are there. I tried to clean it up but reverted back continuously by the main author to unencyclopaedic version.
Heba Aisha (
talk) 05:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete This a caste based advocacy group that fails
WP:ORGCRIT. Although there are some passing mentions in some article, that is expected from an advocacy group. Some of it is clearly press statements. --
Walrus Ji (
talk) 13:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete: Not seeing now
WP:ORGCRIT is being met. Lots of sources that are passing mentions, from connected sources or just pure puffery. This article is probably better than their website at promoting them, and the obvious COI editor is
WP:OWNing the article and preventing edits that would help with
WP:NPOV. I'm just not seeing enough in-depth sources though. Ravensfire (
talk) 14:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - the article is on a more than century old foundation and notable and largest organization representing
Kshatriyas and
Rajputs in India since year 1897. it has been hijacked by some POV & puffery pushing editors, what it needs strong page protection and blocking of editors like
[2]. I have again done clean up. Thanks
Jethwarp (
talk) 14:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Jethwarp, You are using their claims about establishment year as fact. Such groups are known to inflate figures. I would not believe any word written in their website unless the facts are vouched by a reliable source. Talking of RS, which are the ORGCRIT satisfying sources you found?
Walrus Ji (
talk) 14:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)reply
[3] search results for अखिल भारतीय क्षत्रिय महासभा google books — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jethwarp (
talk •
contribs)
Passing mentions do not help in passing
WP:ORGCRIT, if you have strong reliable, third party source with significant coverage, then please present.
Walrus Ji (
talk) 17:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)reply
SupprtWalrus Ji, most of the content have been derived from the caste organisation's website itself and the dubious websites. The third party independent sources have only passing mention.
Heba Aisha (
talk) 18:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment' not a single citation is from website of of organization or other website. And to be correct your opening statement I should have opted for speedy delition is false. Your speedy deletion request was already declined earlier
[4] also the problemetic editor has been blocked
[5]Jethwarp (
talk) 15:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted after discussion at
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 January 12. Note that there seem to be shenanigans going on here;
Walrus Ji was blocked by ArbCom for reasons unknown to me.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment the article is a strong keep as per my arguments in deletion review I have already cited the third party soruces confirming the notability of organiztion - any one can check deletion review page , thanks
Jethwarp (
talk) 11:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
SpartazHumbug! 08:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep Passes
WP:GNG, there is plenty of coverage
here. Article has been significantly improved since nom.
SailingInABathTub (
talk) 10:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)reply
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.