Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHRIs WORKING GROUP ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

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 delete. Jujutacular ^talk 00:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NHRIs WORKING GROUP ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

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

Contested prod. Long-winded article written in bureaucratic gobbledygook. Original research, promotional and unencyclopaedic. andy (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 10:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - All the proposed problems are listed under Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems. None of them are reasons to delete. Is it notable and verifiable? A quick check seems to show yes. --Triwbe (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a working group of an NGO it is possibly notable, but I cannot see that it is WP:GNG. I will not oppose its deletion as it stands to clean up the promotion problem. --Triwbe (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR is a sound reason for deletion, at the very least. It states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully". But both articles are entirely a synthesis of primary sources which are used indiscriminately and which advance a position, contrary to WP:SYNTH. For example NHRIs "are uniquely placed" and "play an important role". The original author contested the prod so it's fair to assume he rejects this argument and isn't prepared to fix either of these articles, hence this AfD. andy (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I clean forgot about the probable copyvios in both articles. andy (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR is not a reason for deletion. It is a reason to remove the OR leaving the sourced info. If there is a copyvio (and maybe there is) the it should be a WP:CSD#G12. --Triwbe (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the entire article is OR, which makes removing it a bit tricky... andy (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I failed to do my homework properly, and have just discovered National human rights institutions and a host of related articles. My bad. Redirection is probably the best option - there's nothing worth merging. andy (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to WP:OR is getting information from reliable sources. But I have also been thinking if redirection if sources cannot be found. --Triwbe (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having got over my embarrassment about missing the main article I now think that a redirection is pointless because it would certainly classify as an implausible typo per CSD-R3. andy (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as copyvio. Here's one page from which text seems to have been lifted: LINK. Dollars to donuts that this entire unreadable-at-any-speed piece of flotsam in the Wikipedia knowledge lake was completely cut-and-pasted. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Started by a single-purpose account, User:DIHR, which acronym-finder tells me incidentally stands for "Danish Institute for Human Rights." I don't suppose that surprises anyone. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright status of the text is given here. It may or may not be compatible with Wikipedia. The name though does show a strong case for WP:COI.--Triwbe (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless this gets a total rewrite, it's just unencyclopedic spam at the moment. I really pity people who think this kind of writing makes you sound smart. Hairhorn (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete besides WP:OR and copyvio problems, this work group within an organization doesn't notable to me at all.—Chris!_c/t 19:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic, promotional in tone.--Dmol (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2010 (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.