Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Human Rights Watch (2nd nomination)
1)''' Regarding WP:UNDUE: HRW's own viewpoint - one of its main reasons for existence - is that people should have the right to criticise governments, political parties, organisations, private companies, etc. without risking imprisonment, torture or being killed for the fact that they spoke up. In this sense, having a full article documenting known criticism of HRW is fully within the spirit of what HRW is all about. i am sure that even HRW has published some self-criticisms - it's not a cult organisation.  '''(2)''' The ''criticism'' article, preceding http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch&diff=306203492&oldid=305839333 the deletion of many sections, may have lacked proper referencing, but that requires work, not deletion. '''(3)''' Another important point is that |en.wikipedia is not USA.wikipedia.org and it is not westernworld.wikipedia.org either. Please read the documented, systematic bias discussed in . Given that Human_Rights_Watch#Financing_and_services|approximately 100% of HRW's funding is from the West, this is an objective reason to suspect that a pro-Western bias is very likely, and to especially seek  in non-Western information sources, in order to improve the overall neutrality of en.wikipedia.  In other words, "majority" in WP:UNDUE for the subject of HRW and criticism of HRW refers to a world-wide majority, not a USA+Israel+UK-wide majority. '''(4)''' "WTF" in the reasons for deletion - "''anti-Eritrea bias'' (WTF?)" - is not an argument
— User:Boud, 02:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:BIAS||WP:BIAS||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Systemic bias)