Deletion of Hindu Unity 2

Comment: Firstly  is a Guideline not a policy. Secondly, it states a website is notable if ''the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.'' How about the many news media who have covered the fact that the website has been banned? They are all non-trivial works, as indeed is the Indian government which cited it. Having said that the guideline also said the website should be included in the artcle about its parent organisation, hence I suggest it is merged with Bajrang Dal
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: unless evidence is provided that this meets 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: I voted delete the last time this was up. However, recent events in India in which this site was blocked officially for hate speech were covered in national newspapers, which increases notability, and in my opinion causes it to meet . However, the article as it stands is dreadfully pov. Would be wonderful if someone reading this would clean it up. Id do it myself, but Im a sensitive soul and have got more than my share of invective from people with a certain brand of politics recently
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Then please explain how this site meets 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: fails . POV to information ratio alarmingly high. {{tl|NRV
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)