Deletion of International Indonesia Forum

Comment: based on the clear malice of the nomination. This was the third of {{plain link |url=//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Mohsinpathania&namespace=4&newOnly=1 |name=a series of nominations}}—the nominator's first nontrivial contribution to Wikipedia—concerning articles with declared ties to administrators or Wikimedia personnel that began two days after the nominator {{plain link |url=//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User:Mohsinpathania |name=was indefinitely blocked at Commons}} as an account "used ''exclusively'' for disruption." The nominator's assertion that an administrator has an undeclared COI is patently false: it's stated on the article's talk page (declared special:diff/655619209|April 9, 2016). Per , we cannot allow our processes to be subverted to exact vengeances.On the merits, I disagree as well. Most likely, the WHOIS "non organization" statement is a translation mistake, a term of art (perhaps for a non-profit or an organization without a significant internal network), or an entry made by a hosting company without the subject's knowledge. Additionally: (1) WHOIS is not a reliable source; (2) WHOIS is insufficient to disprove the organization's existence when weighted against other evidence; and (3) the fact that it's registered suggests that it ''does'' exist. If I write a letter :The Treachery of Images|that asserts that I don't exist, would anyone believe me? Would we delete a BLP as a hoax if its subject posted on her Twitter account that she was a "non-person
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: We do seem to have enough significant coverage in reliable sources to meet . There's no reason to dismiss "Indonesian language usually digital newspapers" -- where else should we expect the bulk of coverage to be? Google Translate makes it possible to easily check these and let's beware of ystemic bias. To be an Indonesian org. covered in Indonesian is perfectly acceptable. I have found enough -- as well as the three English Gnews hits I see linked to above -- to meet my benchmark for significant, multiple coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:S)

Comment: I'm not sure exactly what is meant by the "non organization" line in the WHOIS report, but it seems a bit outlandish to me to take it at face value and say it's evidence that the subject is "not an organization" or a fake organization. I can see it as an abbreviated form of "non-profit" organization or "non-governmental" organization. Regardless, the registration line in a WHOIS isn't nearly as authoritative as published, reliable sources. We need to read the WHOIS line in context with the sources, and we need to follow the lead of what the reliable sources say. The provided sources http://www.webcitation.org/6S5t2eOuN here and http://www.webcitation.org/6JIjZXXwv here in ''Republika (Indonesian newspaper)|Republika'' demonstrate that this isn't purely an invention by a Wikipedian. Beyond that, the relevant notability guideline is , which is satisfied by the presentation of multiple independent reliable sources in the article that provide in-depth coverage of the topic—see the two sources in ''Republika'', https://web.archive.org/web/20150731113705/http://jateng.metrotvnews.com/read/2015/07/29/151979/puluhan-ilmuwan-dari-berbagai-negara-hadiri-international-indonesia-forum ''MetroTV News'', http://news.okezone.com/read/2012/07/04/373/658559/ugm-yale-university-bahas-posisi-indonesia ''Okezone''. Note that link rot will happen naturally with any source found online – archived URLs do not make the source any less credible than when it was published, and they are certainly not indicative of some contrived hoax. Also note that |self-published sources may be used under certain conditions as sources of information ''about themselves'', as it is done here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:SELFPUB)