Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India International Friendship Society

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. postdlf (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India International Friendship Society[edit]

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

non notable organization, references section of the article is ....quite unique WuhWuzDat 15:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No sentiment shown for deletion outside of the nominator. Tag for sources, if necessary. Carrite (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Newspapers and books worldwide regularly report on the awards given by this group. Though I agree that the reference section is a bit eccentric, that can be corrected through normal editing. Cullen328 (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite's rationale. ArcAngel (talk) ) 06:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find about 50 sources in google news archive and discussion of this in dozens of books. However, the sourcing in the article is bad and the blog references should be removed. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the Criticism section, (previously blanked and restored by author) is while apparently NPOV, is defensive in nature. As above, somewhat eccentric, but can be corrected with normal editing.--Whiteguru (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2011 (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.