Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 26

Akhil Bharatiya Poorva Sainik Seva Parishad (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This is an army council and there is no promotion of any kind, it rejects the confirmation of CSD A11 This page is as per the standards of CSD A7 It should not be deleted It is attached with all reliable sources article which also includes books In which there is information related to the article, please check and send it again to mainspace. Wiki97828 (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The article apparently claimed that the organization was part of the Sangh Parivar, which is at least arguably a credible claim of significance. A temp-undelete might be useful here, particularly if there really are reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Extraordinary Writ ... Reliable sources are associated with the article, you must see it once and maybe send it back to mainspace otherwise transfer it to draftspace I would like to work on it Wiki97828 (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether or not the deleted page was meeting A7/A11 or not, I'm quite sure this organization is another run-of-the-mill right-wing group claiming affiliation with the RSS and Co. Fails WP:NORG. JavaHurricane 08:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Java, Extraordinary Writ I will work on it and send it again to mainspace / draftspace... thanks

• Per my comment above, I think this was nominally a bad A7. Since Wiki97828 has said he's happy with draftification, I think that's the best outcome: as others have said, the article in its present form is unlikely to get very far. So, restore to draftspace. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The article cited a bunch of sources and therefore isn't a great A7. However I think it would be better restored to draftspace rather than mainspace. The first sentence described the subject as "all India Ex-Military Servicemen Council". This was sourced to [1], which doesn't support this. The next sentence is also sourced to two articles which don't support the statement either. The rest of the article is sourced to a bunch of Google Books links and I'm not sure they support what they're being cited for either. If you include citations in an article then those citations do need to support the statements cited. Hut 8.5 18:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hut 8.5 I am in support of this point, please send it to the draftspace.. thanks

• Overturn and allow listing at AfD. Any reasonable objection to an A11 should be speedily overturned. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody ever said anything about it being an A11 except the article's author. —Cryptic 05:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    True.

    Any reasonable objection to an A11 or A7 should be speedily overturned in favour of a discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - none of the sources I can read are at all beyond trivial mentions. In that sense it looks like an okay A7. But some aren't online? Is there an actual source in the books? Or are they trivial/tangential mentions? WilyD 01:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy, send to AfD if desired per SmokeyJoe. This should be a DRV common outcome. Jclemens (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm on the edge here. The organization is yet another, run-of-the-mill "social service" group with no special notability, or indeed any real significance, and a quick search of Google News turned up little significant coverage about the organization, in both English and Hindi. In my experience, organizations here claim affiliation with the RSS all the time for a feeling of legitimacy, and unless sources actually call the organization as a member of the Sangh Parivar, I'd be unwilling to call this claim a credible claim of significance; and the three sources I saw do not say that, or anything at all about the organization in question. I have not yet seen the offline sources, so I will not say if the A7 was good, and I will run a more extensive search on Google Books and JSTOR to see if some sources do turn up. I'm not seeing any point in draftifying: if something comes up, I'll add it to the article, and if nothing comes up, the organization would be failing WP:NORG. For now, I feel that sending the article to AfD should be the right course as there are objections to an A7 above. I'll get back soon on this. JavaHurricane 02:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I'm not going to get time to do a thorough search anytime soon. Best to send to AfD then. JavaHurricane 09:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]