Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science and Rationalists' Association of India

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 no consensus. Looks like the promo / copyvio problems can be resolved editorially. Sandstein 20:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Science and Rationalists' Association of India

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

This article seems to be an advertisement/promotion of Science and Rationalists' Association of India WP:G11. Also, it may be a Unambiguous copyright infringement from http://esotericotherworlds.blogspot.com/2013/01/science-and-rationalists-association-of.html WP:G12. I suggest we DELETE this article. --Jaaron95 (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a copyvio, from the main website as well. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove any copyvio The page was there BEFORE the copyvio text. It was created 21 February 2006‎. The only thing we have to do is rollback in the latest non-copyvio version and hide any copyvio revision. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article is being used for WP:SOAPBOXING, that they "debunks pseudoscientific claims", give me a break. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite with neutrality: The association has been split into two entities and there is a legal battle going on. There is fair bit of ambiguity about the parties and their full legal rights to use the name and logo. This article may be retained but the legal issues as well as the viewpoints of both the stakeholders must be mentioned. --2kaibiswas (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After all the recent cleanup, I think this article is worth keeping. It is a notable organization, the copyvio has been removed, its clearly sourced, COI and neutrality issues are mostly removed. I don't see a reason for deletion now. Insofar as the legal battle, it should be mentioned, but be sure to stick closely to COI and neutrality rules... Jcmcc (Talk) 06:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable organization. Many mentions in Google News (see the "Find sources" link above). In my opinion, it passes WP:NORG. And ya, we should not allow soapboxing. --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Looks like a promo, with lots of names, as if the advertisement banner. Educationtemple (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As others have indicated, the problems that this article had can, and it seems largely were, corrected by editing. This organisation is well know in skeptical circles in countries outside India. I have known about it in Australia for many years. There must be many more sources like the last three current references. It is a notable organisation. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on this one. I personally could only find passing mentions of the organization, but it seems like I may be missing some sources here, so neutral. If kept, then stubify because the content seems promotional and the statement on the group criticizing Mother Teresa is a borderline violation of WP:SOAPBOX. Esquivalience ^t 00:10, 14 April 2015 (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.