==Primarysources tag ready to remove?== 
 The ((primarysources)) tag says This article or section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (May 2008) 

 The primary sources affiliated with the subject of the article are at the moment  used to source the stated aim of the organisation and some of its claimed actions. These are relatively objective claims - i don't see any controversy about claiming whether or not the Coalition Against Genocide campaigned against Modi getting a visa to visit the USA and whether or not he actually got to visit. It seems to me that there are rather a lot of organisation articles on the wikipedia, such as International Bar Association, which start off uniquely having the organisation's own claims on what it aims to do and something about what it claims to have done, but do not have ((primarysources)) tags... In any case, getting some reasonably third-party references is of course required for any article to get beyond stub status. There are now references regarding Modi's attempted 2008 visit to the USA from NDTV and Rediff.com, which are fairly big media organisations, and from the Gujarat Global News Network and World Sikh News. Neither of the latter two have wikipedia entries, but that does not make them unreliable. There is no suggestion AFAIK that they are connected to the Coalition against Genocide. 

 Unless someone has still has a good reason to keep the ((primarysource)) tat, then IMHO we should either remove it or possibly put Template:Refimprove if anyone thinks that there are still too few third party references. i suggest a week or so for any objections.