Talk:Indian Society of International Law

Untitled

This version of the article can in no way be termed as a 'C' violation and so I need not ask anyone's permission before starting the page.

I am sure that someone will delete this also saying that this is a 'stub'.

The editing of pages nowadays have actually started bordering upon 'vandalism'.

I have a picture of the building inauguration, so will upload the same when I reach New Delhi in a few days. So please do not deleted the article saying that there is no source that Nehru inaugurated the institution. DebashisM (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --DebashisM (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I gain nothing from promoting the organisation (although I am a member of the same).

Its a premier organisation for international law and regularly organizes the Henry Dunant moot court competitions in India.

I would like someone reads the talk page, reply to my issues and then wait for answers before he decides to remove the page.

If not I would not rate the brains of the admins to be more than the 'bots' they rely upon.

Further, in my recent presentation in WikiConference India I advocated the use of WikiMedia even by the judiciary, but I find that there are actually the lacunae of being mechanical in the edits which creates confusion. DebashisM (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This article hasn't been proposed for deletion as a copyright violation or as lacking sources, but rather under criterion G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion which includes "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." See WP:NOTPROMOTION for more details. I thought this article was a candidate for deletion under those terms because removing the content causing the article to appear promotional wouldn't leave much of an article left at the moment. I will make those edits and remove the tag.

You should also consider the potential for conflicts of interest.

(Plus, most editors don't appreciate being referred to as 'bots' or 'lacunae'. We try to assume good faith where we can.)§everal⇒|Times 19:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You said:

This article hasn't been proposed for deletion as a copyright violation ...

I deleted an earlier version of this article as a copyright violation, so that explains why the editor makes reference to copyright issues.--SPhilbrickT 20:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Good to know. §everal⇒|Times 20:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, the editor misread a post by a bot, and thought a bot had proposed the article for deletion. I tried to explain this to the editor, but perhaps the response hasn't yet been seen. That may explain the otherwise inexplicable references to bots.--SPhilbrickT 21:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion on Account of Notability

I don't know who placed the notability tag, but despite showing its webpage, as well as the Govt. of India notification, it appears that people are hell bent on deleting this article. Yeah, I have been given a week to improve this time atleast... DebashisM (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I placed the proposed deletion tag, as you can see for yourself in the article history. Notability doesn't depend on whether the subject has a website or not; read WP:N. I didn't want to open the other reference, but I'm fairly sure an url like "taxguru.in" won't take me to a reliable source (see WP:RS). — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 04:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability, etc

"notablility is very strongly asserted and independent sources are readily available" — are we talking about the same article? Where is it "very strongly" asserted? What independent sources are there available without me having to go and google it? What is stopping me from taking this to AFD on grounds of WP:ORG and WP:SOURCES? If this article can be improved then it should be done in the very near future. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 19:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The existence of independent reliable sources is what counts for notability, not their citation in the article. Editors are expected to look for such sources before nominating articles for deletion, not claim that it's someone else's job to do so - it's everyone's job - so "without me having to go and google it" is not a phrase that you should be using. I have added a reference to one of the many reliable sources available here, and if you think that the article needs more, and you are here to help build an encyclopedia rather than to pass judgement on others' efforts to do so, then feel free to add some more. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't all about indiscriminately hoarding material, though your use of the word "build" implies that. Yes, things get deleted. Some people (have to) take on the burden of passing that kind of judgement; it's not easy and I'm not taking it lightly (whatever you may think). Nothing is "everyone's job", what's everyone's job is nobody's job and is not likely to ever get done. The WP:BURDEN of proof "lies with the editor who adds or restores material", not the one who proposes removing it. You can say that the institution is notable and I can believe you, but it needs to be proven in the article.

I'm busy doing other things for Wikipedia, I'm not taking it on as my job to do external research for every article that doesn't look worth the effort to me. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 22:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)