Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalit Freedom Network

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. Navou ^banter / _contribs 18:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dalit Freedom Network

Dalit Freedom Network (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Several editors have undertaken heroic efforts to neutralise this article, but it is irretrievably tainet by the work of User:Hkelkar and ban-evading socks thereof. The cited sources appear not to be mainly about the group, merely to mention it. Some of them are now 404 anyway. There are also links to User:Primetime. I don't think we need the aggro. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete looks like spam for some lame non profit. Nardman1 22:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep article is fine. it was a missionary oranization.--D-Boy 22:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - notable org, there are somw COI issues.Bakaman 01:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman 01:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Dalit Freedom Network is a very notable organization. Its role in the Californian Hindu textbook controversy was widely discussed in the press. It has also been an organizer of major meetings.--ISKapoor 03:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep WP does not judge religions. Some comments above might just conceivably be taken to indicate a wish that it were otherwise. . DGG 04:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The organisation has enough notability to stay. Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. The article requires cleanup and re-write though. utcursch | talk 14:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Sorry, I just don't understand the proposed reasons for deletion. Plenty of articles attract riff-raff, especially those about "professional" wrestlers, but we're not going to delete the lot of those for that reason either because the subjects are notable (according to our guidelines). (jarbarf) 23:39, 15 February 2007 (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.