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 Delete. The sources do seem to echo the press release, making the concern about their independence a reasonable one. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir insight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Sounds like a worthy organisation, but claims to notability weak. Only reference provided is an external link to two websites, and the fact that both websites use identical text makes me suspect this is just a reprint of a press release issued by Kashmir insight. Searched on Google, only hits I can find where Kashmir Insight is the subject of the article is their own webpage and the Wikipedia page. Tagged for ((notability)) and ((neutrality)) since 27 September, neither issue has been addressed. Sorry guys. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in agreement with nominator, including the regrets. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm not terribly great at distinguishing reliable from unreliable publications of India, but the profusion makes me believe at least some are reliable. See [1], [2], [3], WilyD 10:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't, however, whether these sources are reliable. It is whether these sources are independent of the subject, as required here. The references you have found are just two more reprints of the same story, word for word (and a third source already cited in the article), which still makes me think that it's the same press release reprinted by four websites. If that's the case, that most definitely does not qualify as notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These are not reliable sources, and I couldn't find any reliable sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless evidence of noteworthiness is forthcoming. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lack of WP:RS --GPPande talk! 17:39, 25 October 2008 (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.