Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights groups and the Middle East

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. Any merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. --Core des at 06:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights groups and the Middle East[edit]

POV fork of parent articles. For HRW, what's here is actually a subset of what's in Human Rights Watch. For Amnesty International, it's about the same length, but somewhat different, and there's a section on Guantanmo (which is not in the Middle East). —Ashley Y 06:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the history of the parent articles, all of this information at one time was there, and somehow, it was collated into this one article. Now people want it back in the parent articles? I guess you cannot please everybody. I would say If, and only if, all information can be returned to parent articles, then this can be redistributed and deleted, otherwise keep. -- Avi 04:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with Avi. There are many critical informations included in this article. If these infomations can be properly returned to its parent articles, then delete. Otherwise, I recommend keep. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites) 04:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the information should be kept on wikipedia. Perhaps redistribute and then delete the pageMozzie 05:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redistribute and then and only then, Delete per Avi. Also, the nomination is illegitimate. Not only is the article not a fork of any parent articles (although it could do with a somewhat better-descriptive title), it is not written as a vehicle for POV-pushing; it covers a legitimate and well-documented subject, as is readily demonstrable by the fact that the article itself is well-sourced. Tom e r ^talk 05:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or reintegrate back - per Avi & Tomer. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or reintegrate back same as Humus, Avi, and Tomer Robocracy 11:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The inclusion of Guantanamo Bay is...confusing, and the intro section "Human rights groups frequently run into controversy when reporting on an emotionally charged issue such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Often there is more attention given to their claims and counterclaims on Middle East issues than to their coverage of the rest of the world." sounds suspiciously like original research, but it's a notable enough topic, and poor article quality isn't a reason for deletion. -Elmer Clark 02:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless it is reintegrated, although I can see value in an article about criticisms of and responses from human rights groups working in the Mideast. Important subject, although only part of a larger subject on the fairness of these groups worldwide.Noroton 02:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of HRW, at least, there's nothing to reintegrate. What's the point of having a separate article that has less than its parent articles? —Ashley Y 06:52, 22 October 2006 (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.