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. Davewild (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National RTI Forum[edit]

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

This is not really notable. Besides, the author seems to have a close connection. Would like to have a discussion about deletion TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 15:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article links to article in The Hindu, while Google news shows continuing coverage in the Times of India and the Indian Express. These are three of India's most prominent English language newspapers. Nominator, did you look for reliable sources? Cullen328 (talk)`
- Comment I've now read 5 articles from various Indian newspapers that convince me that this organization is notable. The article was heavily edited in November, removing most of its substantive content. Before any editor votes "delete", please read a few of the Indian news sources, and look at the edit history. Cullen328 (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly Murthy2010, cited in the article, indicates that even if this isn't a standalone article, it's one of several things that the encyclopaedia should (but doesn't) discuss with respect to the impact and execution of the Right to Information Act over the past few years. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User:Cullen328. Enough secondary sources exist to establish notability.--Nayvik (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why I nominated this for deletion basically, was because the major contributor (I think the creator) is the person who created this RTI forum itself. I have run into that editor many times, and well, most of the time, anything that she adds is just her propaganda stuff. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 04:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are available outside of those stated in the article, as are those on the much larger and separate RTI activist movement in India. I would have '...RTI Martyrs' in the article replaced instead with 'RTI members' as a basic POV issue. Jørdan 06:12, 8 January 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.