Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Survey: reply
Line 638: Line 638:
:*'''Delete'''. NCORP has pretty clear criteria for what counts as SIGCOV of orgs, and I am not seeing multiple sources meeting all of SIRS. A few sentences is not SIGCOV, and that's all I'm seeing in the NGO Monitor site--everything else is just direct quotes from EMHRM and so not independent. The NGO Monitor coverage also contains some ''very'' contentious claims that would require far more than one source to appear in an article at all, let alone be the basis of one. And that's if the site is RS; given the lack of author details or editorial policy and the highly opinionated, activist tone most of its articles have, I'm doubtful it's reliable.
:*'''Delete'''. NCORP has pretty clear criteria for what counts as SIGCOV of orgs, and I am not seeing multiple sources meeting all of SIRS. A few sentences is not SIGCOV, and that's all I'm seeing in the NGO Monitor site--everything else is just direct quotes from EMHRM and so not independent. The NGO Monitor coverage also contains some ''very'' contentious claims that would require far more than one source to appear in an article at all, let alone be the basis of one. And that's if the site is RS; given the lack of author details or editorial policy and the highly opinionated, activist tone most of its articles have, I'm doubtful it's reliable.
: [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 20:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
: [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 20:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
::Well actully I wouldn't consider NGO Monitor as a reliable source for anything. The point of a discussion like this is to see if editors consider if an article should be kept even if it has some problems. Not following a guideline is a good reason for nomination but as [[WP:POLICY]] says "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." So we're here to apply our common sense, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. [[User:NadVolum|NadVolum]] ([[User talk:NadVolum|talk]]) 10:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:13, 24 January 2024

Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP; no coverage which is independent, reliable, and significant,

While there is a small amount of independent coverage of some of the initiatives it has launched and the reports it has published, this is not sufficient to establish notability per both WP:INHERITORG and WP:NCORP#Significant coverage of the company itself; Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization.

Note that this article was previously deleted under a different name at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euro- Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor; it was then recreated by a Euro-Med HRM employee under a number of names (The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, etc) before finally "sticking" under the current name. The current article has also been edited by at least nine different Euro-Med HRM employees, mostly WP:UPEs.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181211-euro-med-hrm-saudi-arabia-has-forcibly-disappeared-3-libyans/ Yes ? No Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://www.marsad.ly/en/2021/05/19/euro-med-hrm-calls-for-disclosure-of-maps-for-mine-sites-in-libya/ Yes ? No Significant coverage of a "call" from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://www.euromedmonitor.org/en/About No About-self ? Yes ✘ No
https://uia.org/s/or/en/1122281718 ? Unclear where these profiles come from; whether they are from the organization Yes No One sentence of coverage of their aims, and a list of its structure ✘ No
https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-palestine Yes Yes No No mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/report-special-rapporteur-situation-human-rights-palestinian-8 Yes ? No No mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://english.alaraby.co.uk/news/israels-icc-rebuttal-admission-war-crimes-rights-group Yes Yes No Significant coverage of a statement from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/family-visits-imprisoned/ No Republication of a republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release ~ No Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/2890/Euro-Med-announces-changes-in-its-administrative-and-executive-structure No About-self ? ? ✘ No
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/israel-targets-rights-defenders-un-council-hears/1992437 Yes No WP:RSP for Anadolu Agency (controversial topics, international politics) No Significant coverage of a statement from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/author/ramy-abdu/ ? ? No Focused on Ramy Abdu; no significant coverage of Ramy Abdu or Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/author/ramy-abdu/ ? ? No Focused on Ramy Abdu; no significant coverage of Ramy Abdu or Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mec/2019/08/27/as-mena-states-grow-increasingly-repressive-businesses-should-lead-reform/ No Published by Ramy Abdu ? No No mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/staff No About-self ? ? ✘ No
https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/101164 No Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release ? No Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://imemc.org/article/euro-med-monitor-report-suffocation-and-isolation-15-years-of-israeli-blockade-on-gaza/ No Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release ? No Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20200407104742/https://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/lisa-hajjar No Faculty page for a member of the Euro-Med HRM Board of Trustees ? No No mention of the Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://poli.ucalgary.ca/profiles/tareq-ismael No Faculty page for a member of the Euro-Med HRM Board of Trustees ? No No mention of the Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/michael-smith-uae-prison-mps-b1813663.html Yes Yes No Significant coverage of a letter organized by the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://exeter.academia.edu/TanyaNewburySmith No academia.edu page for a member of the Euro-Med HRM Board of Trustees ? No No mention of the Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/authors/3/Maha-Hussaini No About-self ? No Maybe SIGCOV of Maha Hussaini, not sigcov of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/author/maha-hussaini/ No Author page for a Euro-Med HRM reporter ? No Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/maha-hussaini-martin-adler-prize-win-rory-peck-trust Yes ? No Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.una-oic.org/page/public/news_details.aspx?id=328294&NL=True No Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release ? No Significant coverage of an official complaint from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://www.un.org/press/en/2021/ngo914.doc.htm No UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's Yes No Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Libya ✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2021/ngo923.doc.htm No UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's Yes No Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Bahrain ✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2021/ngo927.doc.htm No UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's Yes No Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Israel ✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2022/ngo942.doc.htm No UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's Yes No Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Bahrain ✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2023/ngo950.doc.htm No UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's Yes No Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Israel ✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2023/ngo953.doc.htm No UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's Yes No Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Israel ✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2023/ngo959.doc.htm No UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's Yes No Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Bahrain ✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2022/ngo933.doc.htm No UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's Yes No Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Israel ✘ No
https://kvinnatillkvinna.org/about-us/where-we-work/mena/palestine/ No Funded (?) a Euro-Med HRM Project ? No No mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2017/08/palestine-gaza-civil-society-women-leadership-incubator.html Yes ? No Significant coverage of Women's Leadership Incubator project, passing mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.launchgood.com/campaign/from_denial_to_defense_youth_for_rights#!/ No A "go fund me" equivilent for a Euro-Med HRM project No No Significant coverage of the project, not of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
http://www.ju.edu.jo/Lists/NewsLetter/Disp_f.aspx?ID=1175&Issue=August%202016&order=8 No UJ Newsletter about a summer school hosted at UJ ? No Passing mention of the Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://thepoliticain.co.uk/middle-east/201/ No Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release ? No Significant coverage of a summer school set up by Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://www.bnreport.com/en/wikirights-2/ Yes ? No Significant coverage of a program by Euro-Med HRM to edit Wikipedia, no significant coverage of the Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://law.ju.edu.jo/Lists/AcademicNews/Test.aspx?ID=78&ContentTypeId=0x0100FB3DD40023178C409CDBAC99DB39D980 No Copy of source 36, this time hosted on UJ's sharepoint ? No ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20211003105920/https://europebriefnews.com/2017/10/25/watering-the-seeds/ Yes No Not discussed at RSN, but I'm convinced that it is not a reliable source. The source is obscure and now defunct, and its "about me" page only said "Europe Brief News (EBN) provides our readers with latest news from across Europe such as news, stories, politics, tourism, travel, food, health diet and many more topics" which does not indicate any level of editorial control or reliability. The specific article also raises questions; it is labeled as "news", but it is reads as an opinion piece.

Note that there is a current organization using the name Europe Brief News that does appear reliable, but they are not the same entity - the current one was founded in 2020.

? It could arguably contain WP:SIGCOV, but I'm not convinced; it uses a lot of words but says very little about Euro-Med HRM, and WP:NCORP requires that the coverage is sufficient to "makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization". However, this is a lesser issue than the reliability of the source. ✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/3190 No About-self ? No Significant coverage of a project launched by Euro-Med HRM, no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/11/career-assassination-dws-scapegoating-of-arab-employees Yes Yes No Passing mention of a press release from Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.nonviolenceinternational.net/many_faces_wann No Appears written by We Are Not Numbers ? No Significant coverage of We are Not Numbers, a project launched by Euro-Med HRM, but not of Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://www.middleeasteye.net/features/deported-israels-war-against-palestine-solidarity-activists No Written by the secretary of Euro-Med HRM ? No Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/128695 No Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release ? No Significant coverage of We are Not Numbers, a project launched by Euro-Med HRM, but not of Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
We Are Not Numbers: Junge Stimmen aus Gaza No A book written by We Are Not Numbers ? ? ✘ No
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/07/struggles-triumphs-palestinian/ Yes ? No Significant coverage of We are Not Numbers, a project launched by Euro-Med HRM, but not of Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20160824141709/http://www.daysofpalestine.com/news/israel-bans-right-activist-entering-gaza/ Yes ? No Single sentence of coverage of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.972mag.com/gaza-fence-stories-hebrew/ Yes ? No No mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/5/german-court-rules-palestinian-ex-dw-journalist-sacking-unlawful Yes Yes No Passing mention of a Euro-Med HRM investigation ✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5039/Euro-Med-Monitor%27s-We-Are-Not-Numbers-project-celebrates-graduation-of-new-batch-of-writers No About-self ? No ✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5562/Euro-Med-Monitor%E2%80%99s-project-We-Are-Not-Numbers-launches-17th-cohort-of-writers No About-self ? No ✘ No
https://news.trust.org/item/20210902130009-tk186/ Yes ? No Two quotes from Euro-Med HRM; syndicated from a Reuters article which is used seperately as a reference ✘ No
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/they-told-us-they-hate-africans-hundreds-detained-deported-abu-dhabi-2021-09-02/ Yes Yes No Two quotes from Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/tori-58446660 Yes Yes No Two quotes from Euro-Med HRM. Appears to be identical to the two reuters and truth.org sources linked above, except translated into Pidgin ✘ No
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1437749/saudi-arabia-human-rights-abuse-minister-disappeared ~ Most of the coverage related to Euro-Med HRM consists of quotes No WP:DAILYEXPRESS No Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://reliefweb.int/report/turkey/risks-refugees-disabilities-face-turkey-how-mitigate-risks-and-challenges-shape-apt No Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release ? No Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://europebriefnews.com/2017/12/09/euro-med-monitor/ Yes ? See earlier discussion of Europe Brief New's reliability No Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/world/middleeast/fleeing-gaza-only-to-face-treachery-and-disaster-at-sea-.html Yes Yes No Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1437749/saudi-arabia-human-rights-abuse-minister-disappeared Yes No WP:DAILYEXPRESS No Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jordan-arrests-hundreds-of-teachers-after-violent-clashes-zzg7ppsvh Yes Yes No Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-war-survivor-commemorates-victims-paintings-2022-05-26/ Yes Yes No Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://palestine.unwomen.org/en/stories/feature-story/2022/05/zainab-al-qolaq-a-survivor-of-an-israeli-airstrike-on-gaza-in-may-2021-tells-her-story ? ? No No mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Delete per nominator. JM (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The large number of sources obviously indicates notability even if some of them don't count. BilledMammal provides no evidence of the claim of 9 paid editors, and anyway a quick look at the history shows a large number of edits by experienced editors in good standing. Mentions that are not just in passing are frequently used as indicating notability: when an independent source discusses something done by the organization or cites and analyses (even in disagreement) something published by the organization, that counts. Zerotalk 07:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you specify which sources are independent, reliable, and contain significant coverage of the organisation?
    Regarding the UPE’s, conclusive evidence has been provided privately; I can’t provide it publicly as it would violate WP:OUTING. BilledMammal (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a Wikipedia policy about evidence about paid authorship that cannot be provided publicly as being inadmissible in discussions about page deletion? I'm not sure, I'm just asking. Wickster12345 (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we cannot see the evidence how can we determine whether it holds up? Wickster12345 (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have edited the article as well, I am not paid. Can we be pointed to the most recent edit by a COI editor? Selfstudier (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Late-2022; they come in waves every year or two editing a large number of articles, including this one, to publicize Euro-Med HRM's activities. There's an ongoing discussion about COI tags and editing on the article's talk page; happy to take this there if you want to discuss further, to avoid getting too deep into a tangential topic. BilledMammal (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of what you said is clear evidence of paid authorship. Neither the discussion about COI Tags nor the contents of the discussion on the talk page. @BilledMammal Wickster12345 (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree that there is sufficient consensus on the basis of established Wikipedia policy that a majority of the cited sources are unreliable in determining notability. Some of the sources listed are, in my opinion, not biased, some are able to establish notability, some are clearly independent of the subject matter, even if not all the sources are all of these three things. Wickster12345 (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insofar as the claims made by @BilledMammal are factually accurate. The re-creation after an AfD in that way is also very concerning. FortunateSons (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the 2015 deletion was on the basis of only 3 delete votes and the 2021 AfD was closed as no consensus. So the story is more complex than that. Zerotalk 11:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read those, I am referring to the claims the sources (and secondarily on the paid editors) which appear accurate. I performed a cursory search myself and have not found other (better) sources (except the article by NGO Monitor, whose reliability is disputed per the RS Noticeboard). FortunateSons (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a very prominent human rights monitor that is abundantly covered well in excess of the requirements of WP:GNG. There are ample references to it in academic literature, as a casual WP:BEFORE search would have shown - and one has to question if one was in fact performed. In this paper published in The Lancet, the top pedigree medical journal, it is one of two esteemed sources referenced for basic on-the-ground information-gathering alongside UNRWA. In at least two recent instances: [1][2], UNRWA published press releases about Euro-Med's recent fact-finding activities, so this monitor notably operates in an ongoing capacity in UN circles. These reports are needless to say routinely picked up by RS. The evidence for notability is all over the internet, and overwhelming. This nomination is incomprehensible and the aspersions about paid-editing largely unsupported. I'm pretty sure I've edited this page in the last 12 months, and I certainly wasn't paid. The nominator has assessed the sources on the page, but could they clarify if they performed a proper WP:BEFORE or not? I suspect not, and the wise thing to do here would be to withdraw the nomination before it wastes any more community time. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I conducted a WP:BEFORE. Looking through your links, I don't see any that are independent, reliable, and significant coverage - and I don't believe you are asserting that they are. Perhaps you - or any of the other editors who support keeping the article - can provide WP:THREE sources they believe do meet that criteria so we can assess the opposition to this nomination on the basis of the evidence?
A small correction to your comment; UNRWA doesn't publish press releases about Euro-Med's recent fact-finding activities, they republish Euro-Med's press releases. BilledMammal (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) Watchdog Submits Evidence of Israeli Executions of Gaza Civilians to UN, ICC in Common Dreams Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2) Rights at Stake and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Two Special Issues of the Journal of Human Rights Scholarly Citation. Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3) National and International Civilian Protection Strategies in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Scholarly Citation. Seems there are many more citations in books, so perhaps the "before" was less than comprehensive. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) That's coverage of a report by Euro-Med HRM but I'm not seeing any coverage of the organization itself - if I have missed something, please quote it.
Per WP:NCORP, such coverage is not sufficient to establish notability of the organization; Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. As an aside, while Common Dreams is not at RSP, discussions at RSN lean towards it being unreliable.
2) Coverage is The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, a Geneva-based Human Rights NGO, reported that the law legitimized censorship and restricted freedom of expression (Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor 2020). Not even SIGCOV of their report, let alone SIGCOV of the organization.
3) Coverage is PA Security also commonly targets opposition. The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor documented 1,274 arbitrary detentions in the West Bank in 2015 and 1,089 summonses by Palestinian Security Services. The human rights violations targeted mostly individuals affiliated with Hamas or who opposed PA policies, including about 35 journalists and human rights activists, 476 university students, and 67 teachers/professors (Euro-Med 2016). Again, not even SIGCOV of their report, let alone SIGCOV of the organization. BilledMammal (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4) Israel 'stealing organs' from bodies in Gaza, alleges human rights group Euronews. That's 4, I can keep them coming if you like, although only 3 were asked for.Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5) Allegations of Organ Theft by Israel Add Insult to Injury in Gaza Politics Today Selfstudier (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
#4 and #5 are the same as #1; maybe containing SIGCOV of a report from Euro-Med HRM, but not SIGCOV of the organization itself. If I have missed such coverage, please quote it; otherwise, can you please provide WP:THREE sources that comply with the requirements of WP:NCORP? BilledMammal (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/euro-mediterranean-human-rights-monitor
2) https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/euro-med-human-rights-monitor?rid=326186932081-66&sid=142920
3) https://uia.org/s/or/en/1122281718
That didn't take long, GNG established, methinks, this is also more than we had the last time this was nominated. Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WP:CRUNCHBASE; that source is deprecated
  2. Lobbyfacts collates and mirrors a number of other sites, primarily the EU Transparency Register (which is populated by submissions from the organization), but also Euro-Med HRM's website and a few others. It contains significant coverage of the organization, but does not contain coverage that is both independent and significant.
  3. One sentence of coverage; Advocate for the human rights of all persons across Europe and the MENA region, particularly those who live under occupation, in the throes of war or political unrest and/or have been displaced due to persecution or armed conflict. Further, they normally provide a profile in the words of the organization itself. The coverage is neither significant nor independent.
Unfortunately, none of these can count towards notability; they are all indisputably unsuitable. Do you have any that are suitable? BilledMammal (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meets GNG, prove otherwise. Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think BilledMammal has already done so above. Thoroughly, as usual. JM (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like the last time? Selfstudier (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see things that have changed for the better since the last nomination by nom a couple years ago but I can't see what is worse? This just seems like a pointy nomination following the conversation at RSN Selfstudier (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I noticed the main thing missing in that list of articles mentioning Euro-Med was anything about it. Well I just put in a Google of 'Euro-mediterranean monitor review' and got a number if whoever started off this AfD wants a pointer on how to find something like that. Evaluation might also be a good word but about is liable to just lead back to an organisation. I have looked at it and the article about it and I believe it is definitely notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Here are the links for the first few things I got from the search [3] by Richard A. Falk, [4] by Reliefweb, [5] by Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency. NadVolum (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, none of those sources are independent. Falk is the chairman of the Euro-Med HRM, the ReliefWeb article is a republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release, and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency is a major donor to the Euro-Med HRM (about a million USD per year) and created the report in that context. is about a different organization with a very similar name.
    Further, the second two don't constitute WP:SIGCOV; they both fail WP:NCORPs requirement that sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. BilledMammal (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC) Updated BilledMammal (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice that EuroMed Rights one, and I'd already discounted EuroMed ones as they were something to do wit science. and thie one was originally the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network. Talk about confusing. NadVolum (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear how bad. I suppose then you'd also find NGO Monitor's article [6] about it is trivial or unreliable? NadVolum (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NadVolum, Selfstudier, Zero0000, and Iskandar323:
Looking at the source, it might just scrape by the WP:SIGCOV requirements, through the paragraphs where it says Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor does not publish any financial date on its website, reflecting a complete lack of transparency and accountability and Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor (Euro-Med Monitor) consistently spreads blood libels and conspiracy theories about Israel, and accuses Israel of “apartheid,” genocide,” “ethnic cleansing,” “collective punishment,” and “war crimes.” The rest is limited to quotes from Euro-Med and affiliated individuals and thus doesn't contribute to WP:SIGCOV as the quotes aren't independent coverage.
I think it's too brief, but reasonable minds might disagree. The larger concern is whether it is reliable and thus suitable to both count towards notability and be used in the article. I'm not convinced that it is, but what do the four of you think? BilledMammal (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly should, considering you argued against it being a reliable source on the noticeboard about this question less than 48h ago? Or have you changed your mind? FortunateSons (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GNG met and situation improved relative to previous nomination.Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NCORP has pretty clear criteria for what counts as SIGCOV of orgs, and I am not seeing multiple sources meeting all of SIRS. A few sentences is not SIGCOV, and that's all I'm seeing in the NGO Monitor site--everything else is just direct quotes from EMHRM and so not independent. The NGO Monitor coverage also contains some very contentious claims that would require far more than one source to appear in an article at all, let alone be the basis of one. And that's if the site is RS; given the lack of author details or editorial policy and the highly opinionated, activist tone most of its articles have, I'm doubtful it's reliable.
JoelleJay (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well actully I wouldn't consider NGO Monitor as a reliable source for anything. The point of a discussion like this is to see if editors consider if an article should be kept even if it has some problems. Not following a guideline is a good reason for nomination but as WP:POLICY says "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." So we're here to apply our common sense, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. NadVolum (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Euro-Mediterranean_Human_Rights_Monitor_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1198527986"