Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Peace Without Justice (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Emma Bonino. Editors interested in merging sourced material from this page's edit history to Emma Bonino are encouraged to do so. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Peace Without Justice[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It exists and there are some sources, but not the level of independent, reliable sources to show it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years.

1st AfD closed as no consensus due to low participation. Given how long this has been in CAT:NN I think we really need to decide what the consensus is here. Boleyn (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect either to Qatargate or Emma Bonino. It's hopeful to think that this nomination will reach a consensus when nothing about the subject has changed since the first discussion closed four days ago. As a courtesy note, Wiki-etiquette (WP:BEFORE) asks that we Check to see if enough time has passed since previous nominations before renominating, and I'm not sure this shouldn't apply just because the previous outcome was no consensus.

It might be the inclusionist in me talking, but I think the nomination mischaracterises the available coverage: there are many reliable, independent sources that more-than-mention the organisation. Here are some of the sources that came up from a quick search, a few in well-established Italian newspapers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

Despite this coverage, my quick searches lead me to believe that the organisation is mostly discussed in the context either of Qatargate (search results) or its founder, Emma Bonino. Nonetheless, searching around the NGO's areas of activity (e.g., FGM) does return some results. So, while I think there is probably just about enough in the sources to meet WP:GNG and justify a standalone article on the NGO, sadly, I suspect no editor will be interested in rewriting this article: Qatargate has an outdated tag, Emma Bonino didn't link to the organisation until a few seconds ago (and that article says nothing about Qatargate), and the organisation's website seems to be down, which makes me wonder if things were wrapped up after Qatargate. The present article is uncited and likely WP:OR, with a previous editor declaring a WP:COI on the talk page. So a redirect to Qatargate or Emma Bonino, without prejudice to the page's recreation as a standalone article should an interested editor take part, strikes me as most appropriate. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the thought of IgnatiusofLondon above, but I do not think a redirect is justified in this case. I would suggest a Merge with Emma Bonino, adding a small paragraph describing her connections with the association and a couple senteces on what the association does. Most of the current page content does not need to be kept, as it looks mostly promotional and unsourced. --Broc (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.