Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libyan Anti-Torture Network
- 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 soft delete. Based on
"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
]
Libyan Anti-Torture Network
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Libyan Anti-Torture Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no
WP:TRIVIALMENTION and talking about situation in Libya not about them. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 23:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
]
- WP:GNG--Ibrahim.ID ✪ 00:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 23:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Ibrahim, I understand your points but I would like to explain that, unfortunately, due to the security risks facing the members of the Libyan Anti-torture Network, or any human rights defenders in Libya really, it makes it diffcult to include all of their activities and achievements without exposing them to danger, torture or even death.
- Nevertheless, if you could give me a few pointers in order to improve the article and hopefully avoid deletion, that would be great. Thank you! Dawn-editor (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think this is irrational reason. We are talking about NGO, a public and known firm that helps people and this discussion about Notabilty criteria and Wikipedia is not a soapbox --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 00:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)]
- I think this is irrational reason. We are talking about NGO, a public and known firm that helps people and this discussion about Notabilty criteria and
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I can't find much for sourcing. I agree with the sentiment above, but we need sourcing that's independent from the organization. Otherwise the article is biased, and that's not an acceptable compromise. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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.