Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 February 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2016 February 18
2016 February 20 >

19 February 2016

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Euro-Mediterranean Human Right Monitor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

While it was not my page and I do not have any connection with the organization, I was surprised by the sudden deletion of the article without any discussion. It makes no sense to publish a deleted article under another name, as I later discovered it was, but the first deletion without any in depth discussion was rather dubious. Qualitatis (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euro- Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor basically concluded that the article as it then stood did not at all establish notability. I did not participate in that discussion, but I think i would have agreed. Recently the article was recreated under a slightly different name, and tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4 as a recreation of previously deleted content. I compared the then-current version to the version that was deleted in the AfD, and found that they were substantiually similar, and that nothing had been done to address the notability issues. Therefore i speedy-deleted it under G4. That is not and should not be a bar to a recreation with better sources that does establish notability, if the independent published reliable sources exist. I would be willing to undelete and move to draft, under the AfC process, with the understanding that this would not be moved to mainspace until an AfC reviewer approved it. @Qualitatis: DES (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is worth reading Talk:Euro-Mediterranean Human Right Monitor which I intentionally did not delete when I deleted the article under WP:CSD#G4. On that page, Qualitatis has explained his or her reasons for wanting (or "demanding") the restoration of the article. The view was expressed that it was only deleted to suppress the organizations POV. I reject that contention -- that POV surely had no effect on my actions, and I doubt that it did on anyone involved in the AfD discussion. Others may judge for themselves. DES (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse if as described above then appears to meet the CSD criteria, and the original discussion reached a rough consensus for deletion. If the nominator doesn't like that, then the way to deal with that is to (a) spend time on wikipedia and try and change the relevant policies (though I doubt that will bear fruit quickly if at all) or (b) create a better article meeting the relevant standards. Given the discussion on the talk page, I'd suggest trying to get the interest of a more experienced editor, since there appears to be a fair gap between what the expectation for notability generally is and the nominators belief. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The original AfD close was correct but the discussion didn't attract much interest and the consensus was half-hearted, as is so often the case for topics where there may be significant under-representation in English-language media. It doesn't sound like there is any reason to overturn the deletion at this point (so read this as an Endorse if you like) but I do think we should be extra-sensitive to the possibility that language bias is a factor here. Thparkth (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what ever language, we still need sources that establish notability. It may be that many Wikipedia editors mare not as good at finding sources in other languages, and that the outcome would have been different for an organization headquartered in, say, Washington DC. But an organization located in Geneva is likely to have sources in major European languages, if it has sources at all, and many editors are conversant with those. It is not as if non-english-language sources were offered but ignored. No sources with more than passing mentions have yet been offered by anyone about this organization. Qualitatis, who started this discussion, has basically claimed that a large number of passing mentions establishes notability. That would be a significant change in policy. DES (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where is the policy formulated that the multiple citation of an organization over a longer time by Reliable Sources does not mean that the organization is notable? Of course it does. If a range of different RS decide to cite a source, they all regard that source notable, otherwise they would ignore it, or cite it with reservation. As WP is primarily based on secundary sources, it should assume an organization notable if regarded as such by the RS. Who are WP editors to dispute the opinion of the RS? --Qualitatis (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Well you think it's notable, so we should have an article about it, not mention it in passing in other contexts. Surely the same applies elsewhere? --82.14.37.32 (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have the stub system for yet incomplete articles. If the system can be abused for preventing the creation of an article with clear potential, one should do a stap back and ask how healthy the system is. The Euro-Med Monitor page has never contained a single wrong, untrue or controversial word and is about a long-standing, vital and regularly cited organization, so there is no reason to wait with restoring the page. Also per WP:BURO. --Qualitatis (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need to put a word in boldface in front of everything you write; we heard you when you nominated the article. It not only gives the usual impression that you're trying to vote (which is evil), but that you're trying to vote twice (which is both evil and dishonest). —Cryptic 13:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is arguing that it should be deleted for being incomplete, that's just a straw man. It's still most odd that this "vital" organisation you can't produce a single independent reliable source which write about them directly and in detail, which is what the GNG standard is, rather than a lot of frothing and "superlatives". --82.14.37.32 (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just the view of an isolated clique who blindly and dumbly applies rules according to a narrow interpretation. With vital, I mean that the group is very active on social media, despite its ban from WP. The fact that the group is outlawed by Israel proves that the organisation is credible and notable, as that state is very afraid of groups that reveal the truth (see the hunt on other organisations). The detailed source will certainly come. Just a matter of time. In the mean time, the readers will be deprived of useful info about the organisation. --Qualitatis (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "ban" on WP, if there was all of your edits adding the organisation's press releases everywhere on en-WP would have been reverted. The rules about notability apply to everyone and everything, so no one is going to bend the rules for you, no matter how obnoxious you get. And you are becoming increasingly obnoxious, starting by accusing people here of being part of the "hasbara army" (= the "Israeli propaganda machine"), and now telling everyone here that we're "an isolated clicque who blindly and dumbly apply rules". Thomas.W talk 15:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Generally I've found spending time insulting people is not a particularly persuasive tactic. I think you can guarantee that over the years we've had hundreds if not thousands of listing here promising that next week/month/year the <topic> will be able to meet the standards so we are just being shortsighted in not just being as smart as the people claiming that and including it now. In some cases those articles will now be here (hopefully with high quality articles), because the people interested in the topic cared enough about it to go off and find the sources and do the leg work rather than moaning about it (And frankly I doubt anyone here sees those articles making it as anything other than a positive outcome). I suspect the majority however still don't have articles. "Just the view of an isolated clique who blindly and dumbly applies rules according to a narrow interpretation" yet strangely enough for such a horrible project with all these problems we get people here absolutely desperate to include articles on a range of topics which fall short of our guidelines, you'd think if it was such an awful, short-sighted place to be they'd fork the content (the license allows it), setup better standards and show us where we've been going wrong all these years. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, eminently reasonable deletion given the nature of the sources, which were either not independent of the subject, or so trivial and slight as to be useless. The accusation of bad faith and a conspiracy theory made by the nominator against the editors involved for deleting the article is also very disappointing. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC),[reply]
  • Note I have a friend who has some relevant background and language skills. His comment: "I did a little bit of searching as well but found nothing independent. However, the board of trustees has some well-known respectable people, in particular the Chairman Richard Falk." So endorse but let's keep an open mind about this and not let this AfD/DRV set too high of a bar for recreation if and when sources do appear. Also, a redirect to Richard A. Falk might be reasonable with a few sentences and sources from here included... Hobit (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notability is not inherited. Having a notable person as chairman doesn't make this organisation notable, and redirecting to Richard Falk should IMHO only be done if his being a chairman of this organisation is a major part of what he's notable for, which it isn't. Thomas.W talk 12:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the inherited thing. Disagree on the redirect. We redirect to things all the time if there is something to redirect to that's relevant. Currently his article just has a passing mention to this group. But I don't think changing that to 2 or 3 sentences would be a WP:WEIGHT issue. At that point, it's reasonable to have a redirect rather than a red link. Hobit (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also, my comments on a redirect aren't really relevant for DRV. I've just stated them as a reasonable way forward. I endorse the deletion because the discussion was closed per the consensus. I don't support recreating the article, given it doesn't meet WP:N. I do think a redirect may be the way to go in the future. Hobit (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_February_19&oldid=1039555990"