Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akhil Bharatiya Kshatriya Mahasabha

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akhil Bharatiya Kshatriya Mahasabha

Akhil Bharatiya Kshatriya Mahasabha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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:V WP: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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 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]

  • • Supprt Walrus 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]

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]

• Keep Per sources provided by Jethwarp. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 09:46, 23 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]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG, is a reputable trust that works for Kshatras. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 16:41, 26 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.