Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Rights Without Frontiers

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 delete. Daniel (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Without Frontiers

[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)

This has been tagged for years and years; it's little more than a directory-style entry with a history of COI edits and link spam. Nothing much can be found on this outfit, besides a few mentions in Amnesty International and HRW and, of course, press releases. The best thing I found was this, an *ahem* somewhat biased opinion piece that inflates the organization, in a non-notable publication which is spammed for in our article on a publishing outfit, Pulsamerica. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article does not meet
WP:NGO. The organization is active on the international level, however I could not find "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." JimRenge (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per JimRenge and nom. Feoffer (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They have been described as "One of the world's leading human rights groups" here, although I am not sure how reliable the source is (low key academic journal? But it's called '
WP:NORG/GNG requirement. PS. A bit more digging and I found the source I mentioned mirrored here, but it seems like a low key news piece in a minor Australian magazine. (Also, the article doesn't provide in-depth analysis of the organization outside a few superlatives, and quotes an otherwise unnamed "HRWF’s Internet consultant" a lot, which makes it not very independent (it's really is on the level of a rewritten press release, just from NGO, not the more common a for-profit spam variety). Anyway, I guess it is probably the best source we have, but still not enough in light of our source requirements. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 16 February 2021 (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.