Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 6

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Capital

Vision Capital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Minor private equity firm without any sigcov that I can find. BrigadierG (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. BrigadierG (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Loewstisch (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Fails
  WP:SIGCOV

Jo the fire dragon 🐉「talk」 20:51, 8 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.

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 no consensus‎. While a majority of editors have !voted for keep, editors in favor of deletion continue to maintain that strict organizational notability guidelines have not been met. The difference in evaluation comes down to differing assessments over the degree of independence of various examples of coverage cited in this discussion, as well as assessments as to whether coverage is of the organization, of its reports, or of its founders. A few keep !votes also made IAR arguments to the effect that this organization's reports' prominence in coverage relating to Israel-Palestine is sufficient to establish notability despite the fact that this coverage is generally not of significant depth regarding the organization. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor

Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails

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

Note that this article was previously deleted under a different name at

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/		?	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/		?	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	About-self	?		✘ No
https://uia.org/s/or/en/1122281718	? Unclear where these profiles come from; whether they are from the organization		One sentence of coverage of their aims, and a list of its structure	✘ No
https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-palestine			No mention of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/report-special-rapporteur-situation-human-rights-palestinian-8		?	No mention of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://english.alaraby.co.uk/news/israels-icc-rebuttal-admission-war-crimes-rights-group			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/	Republication of a republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release	~	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	About-self	?	?	✘ No
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/israel-targets-rights-defenders-un-council-hears/1992437		WP:RSP for Anadolu Agency (controversial topics, international politics)	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/	?	?	Focused on Ramy Abdu; no significant coverage of Ramy Abdu or Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/author/ramy-abdu/	?	?	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/	Published by Ramy Abdu	?	No mention of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/staff	About-self	?	?	✘ No
https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/101164	Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release	?	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/	Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release	?	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	Faculty page for a member of the Euro-Med HRM Board of Trustees	?	No mention of the Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://poli.ucalgary.ca/profiles/tareq-ismael	Faculty page for a member of the Euro-Med HRM Board of Trustees	?	No mention of the Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/michael-smith-uae-prison-mps-b1813663.html			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	academia.edu page for a member of the Euro-Med HRM Board of Trustees	?	No mention of the Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/authors/3/Maha-Hussaini	About-self	?	Maybe SIGCOV of Maha Hussaini, not sigcov of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/author/maha-hussaini/	Author page for a Euro-Med HRM reporter	?	Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/maha-hussaini-martin-adler-prize-win-rory-peck-trust		?	Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://www.una-oic.org/page/public/news_details.aspx?id=328294&NL=True	Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release	?	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	UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's		Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Libya	✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2021/ngo923.doc.htm	UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's		Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Bahrain	✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2021/ngo927.doc.htm	UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's		Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Israel	✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2022/ngo942.doc.htm	UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's		Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Bahrain	✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2023/ngo950.doc.htm	UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's		Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Israel	✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2023/ngo953.doc.htm	UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's		Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Israel	✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2023/ngo959.doc.htm	UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's		Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Bahrain	✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2022/ngo933.doc.htm	UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's		Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Israel	✘ No
https://kvinnatillkvinna.org/about-us/where-we-work/mena/palestine/	Funded (?) a Euro-Med HRM Project	?	No mention of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2017/08/palestine-gaza-civil-society-women-leadership-incubator.html		?	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#!/	A "go fund me" equivilent for a Euro-Med HRM project		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	UJ Newsletter about a summer school hosted at UJ	?	Passing mention of the Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://thepoliticain.co.uk/middle-east/201/	Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release	?	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/		?	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	Copy of source 36, this time hosted on UJ's sharepoint	?		✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20211003105920/https://europebriefnews.com/2017/10/25/watering-the-seeds/		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	About-self	?	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			Passing mention of a press release from Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://www.nonviolenceinternational.net/many_faces_wann	Appears written by We Are Not Numbers	?	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	Written by the secretary of Euro-Med HRM	?	Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/128695	Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release	?	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	A book written by We Are Not Numbers	?	?	✘ No
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/07/struggles-triumphs-palestinian/		?	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/		?	Single sentence of coverage of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://www.972mag.com/gaza-fence-stories-hebrew/		?	No mention of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/5/german-court-rules-palestinian-ex-dw-journalist-sacking-unlawful			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	About-self	?		✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5562/Euro-Med-Monitor%E2%80%99s-project-We-Are-Not-Numbers-launches-17th-cohort-of-writers	About-self	?		✘ No
https://news.trust.org/item/20210902130009-tk186/		?	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/			Two quotes from Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/tori-58446660			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	WP:DAILYEXPRESS	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	Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release	?	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/		? See earlier discussion of Europe Brief New's reliability	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			Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1437749/saudi-arabia-human-rights-abuse-minister-disappeared		WP:DAILYEXPRESS	Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jordan-arrests-hundreds-of-teachers-after-violent-clashes-zzg7ppsvh			Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-war-survivor-commemorates-victims-paintings-2022-05-26/			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 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}}.

Note that this table was added on 28 January not 21 January and now there are two of them one here and one at the bottom. Selfstudier (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was added on 21 January. And this one covers the sources in the article, the one at the bottom covers the sources presented in this AfD. If you wish, feel free to remove both of these comments per

WP:MUTUAL. BilledMammal (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• 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. Zero^talk 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. Zero^talk 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
  Iskandar323 (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Yes, I conducted a

  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: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]

  A reliable journalistic outfit citing a report by an organization is not an example of a source describ[ing] only a specific topic related to an organization. A report is not a "topic." Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:25, 12 February 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 [15] by
  Reliefweb, [17] 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: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 [18] about it is trivial or unreliable? NadVolum (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  Iskandar323

  :

  Looking at the source, it might just scrape by the

  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]

  Actually I was interested in seeing what kind of response the people who push for NGO Monitor being counted as a reliable site would make when it is used to support having a site they want to remove! This AfD is even less likely to succeed than last time as they provide actual news that is widely cited even if it does have a bias, and they keep their opinion articles well marked. NadVolum (talk) 10:33, 24 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

  ]

  How do we write a neutral article when the only substantive coverage comes from the subject's description of itself? JoelleJay (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why do you believe that the article is not neutral? Selfstudier (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Zero, Selfstudier and others. And yes, the article has definitely improved compared to previous noms. --NSH001 (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @NSH001: I wouldn't place your faith in other people quite so easily, particularly when folk say silly things like "The large number of sources obviously indicates notability" which is complete nonsense and has no basis in fact.. When articles have that many references it often an indication that the people who are editing it are trying to make it appear notable when it plainly is not. scope_creep^Talk 14:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I looked at the first 15 references expecting to see a few at least that passed
  WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 14:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion appears to have been canvassed (five and a half days ago, as I write), in a partisan manner, at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Article recreated and heavily edited by UPE's now at AfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks pretty neutrally worded. It seems reasonable as a noticeboard considering there's probably lots of people who have a deep interest in the war. I don't know what UPE stands for. What is the problem you see? NadVolum (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  UPE - Undisclosed Paid Editor. Yes that is a major slur on the article's editors and canvassing and trying to bias who comes. If they have real reason to believe that they should report to an Admin board or otherwise shut up. NadVolum (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  THere is a basis for saying that. The person who set up the page originally was connected to the organisation. They said that but didn't fill in the COI form. The page as it is now seems to have everything they put in removed and replaced with other stuff. NadVolum (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Very unlikely to have been paid but still connected so COI holds. NadVolum (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you don't know what it means, how can you assert that it is neutral? "Please see this AfD" is neutrally worded. "Article recreated and heavily edited by UPE's", even if true, is most definitely not. Then there's the choice of venue... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was judging by the standards of other canvassing I've seen which have been pretty blatant. I believe any other suspected ones are by university students on this program [19]. Their edits seem quite reasonable actually so it must be a fairly good course even if most of hem have been heavily edited since. Wikipedia itself organises similar courses [20]. NadVolum (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the ones I've identified have been board members - although it's possible that the ones that I haven't connected to individuals are those students.

Regarding Pigsonthewing's comment, I posted there because the editors who frequent that forum have experience reviewing COI editing, and such experience would be helpful here. I included that summary to make the relevance to that forum clear, and I didn't consider it an issue because it is factual and because COI editing isn't a reason to delete an article - it's merely a reason to review it more carefully. However, I'll be careful to avoid using terms like "UPE" in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely keep- they are currently providing the most accurate casualty data for the war, according to consensus on that page. Irtapil (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Iskandar323 et al. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For ease of review by other editors and the closer, I've created a table of all sources presented in the AfD.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
ample references to it	? A link to Google Scholar search results. No specific source provided.	? A link to Google Scholar search results. No specific source provided.	? A link to Google Scholar search results. No specific source provided.	? Unknown
this paper published in the Lancet	Authors include the founder and chairman of Euro-Med HRM		Coverage is limited to detailing Euro-Med HRM's activities in preparing the report: "The field researchers of Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor covered 338 (64%) of the total 530 children killed. They focused extensively on mass attacks because it was difficult to cover hundreds of attacks taking place at the same time for 50 days." No WP:SIGCOV of the Euro-Med HRM itself.	✘ No
UNRWA published press releases 1	Republished press release from Euro-Med HRM	?	Coverage of a primary report from Euro-Med HRM; no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
UNRWA published press releases 2	Republished press release from Euro-Med HRM	?	Coverage of a statement from Euro-Med HRM; no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
Their reports are routinely picked up by RS			Coverage of a call from Euro-Med HRM to free a Tunisian prisoner; no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
) Watchdog Submits Evidence of Israeli Executions of Gaza Civilians to UN, ICC in Common Dreams		~ While Common Dreams is not at RSP, discussions at RSN lean towards it being unreliable	Coverage of a report from Euro-Med HRM; no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
Rights at Stake and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Two Special Issues of the Journal of Human Rights Scholarly Citation.			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.	✘ No
National and International Civilian Protection Strategies in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Schoarly Citation.			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)." Not even SIGCOV of their report, let alone SIGCOV of the organization.	✘ No
Israel 'stealing organs' from bodies in Gaza, alleges human rights group			Coverage of an allegation from Euro-Med HRM; no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
Allegations of Organ Theft by Israel Add Insult to Injury in Gaza			Coverage of a report from Euro-Med HRM; no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/euro-mediterranean-human-rights-monitor	?	WP:CRUNCHBASE ; source is deprecated	?	✘ No
https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/euro-med-human-rights-monitor?rid=326186932081-66&sid=142920	Mirrors other sources, which lack independence. For example, the significant coverage comes directly from the Euro-Med HRM's website, and other coverage comes from the EU transparency register, which is populated by submissions from the organization	?		✘ No
https://uia.org/s/or/en/1122281718	They normally provide "a profile in the words of the organization itself"	?	Only 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."	✘ No
3 by Richard A. Falk	Richard A. Falk is the chairman of Euro-Med HRM's Board of Directors	?		✘ No
4 by Reliefweb	Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release	?		✘ No
5 by Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency			Coverage is of EuroMed Rights, not Euro-Med HRM - different organization, with a very similar name.	✘ No
NGO Monitor's article 6		Editor who presented the source has !voted for it to be deprecated	Two sentences of coverage containing highly contentious claims. The closest we have to WP:SIGCOV , but not good enough - particularily given how the source is about to be found unreliable at RSN.	✘ 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}}.

If any editor disagrees with my assessment, please say so - and for the ease of review of your claims by other editors and the closer, please provide a quote of the content that you believe constitutes significant coverage of the organization. Please keep

WP:NCORP#Significant coverage of the company itself in mind when doing so. BilledMammal (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Well since you're repeating yourself my I repeat that is a guideline and "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though occasional exceptions may apply." and

WP:BUREAUCRACY. Is the aricle well worth having in Wikipedia? That's what AfD discussions like this are about. NadVolum (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@

primary source (i.e. an insider's view) even when reliably published (i.e. interviews, their statements or based on material provided by them with no analysis, interpretation, or transformation by others, etc.). S0091 (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Unfortunately the template doesn't include a row for that; I'll see about including it. BilledMammal (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: number of sources does not show notability - those sources need to be independent of the subject and reliable and have indepth coverage of the subject. None of the sources appear to meet this criteria. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 09:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes GNG. Could use a good pruning, article suffers from bloat. Carrite (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  conflict of interest, I disclose have long been a very public advocate of a two-party state, and literally wrote Palestinian law. Bearian (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Moneyhouse report on EHRM German Wiki page (not in sources tables) clearly satisfies GNG and contrary to what is written in the sources tables, LobbyFacts.eu, is a perfectly respectable source of info about EHRM. Selfstudier (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What they're saying is that no reliable source has dealt with it as a prime subject of interest. There's no real drama or controversy about its projects or publications despite what NGO Monitor says and other sources are only interested in what it says or does, not the organisation itself. I believe the article should be kept according to IAR as having encyclopaediac value, I wouldn't normally call myself an inclusionist but this type argument is what meta:Inclusionism versus meta:Deletionism is about. NadVolum (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The coverage in Moneyhouse is not independent. The only sigcov there is in "Commercial register information", which is copied unedited from the swiss commercial register, and it is provided to the commercial register by Euro-Med HRM. BilledMammal (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All information about an organisation comes ultimately from the organisation. Sources don't become non-independent solely because some of their information comes from the original. We rely on intermediate sources, in this case the EU Transparency Register, to process the information. Your argument would also eliminate a news story based on an interview on the basis that the information comes from the interviewee. It is perfectly obvious that this is a perfectly respectable source. Zero^talk 06:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure you understand; this is content written by Euro-Med HRM. It being republished elsewhere doesn’t make it independent. BilledMammal (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I take an editor post that was deleted for say ARBECR and instead sign my name to it, I take responsibility for it. Get it now? Selfstudier (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGIND

, addresses this question directly:

Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

The content being republished by an independent party doesn't change the fact that it was produced by an interested party. BilledMammal (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you don't get it, that's fine. Selfstudier (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well there isn't anything that describes the organisation itself except that NGO Monitor or itself or blogs and they're not reliable sources. It has to stand on its own merits as being widely used by reliable sources and for its activities. That last Delete !vote above, I looked becaused they talked about COI, actually seems to support human rights articles for organisations that have far less written about them - I noticed

WP:HEYMANN. It looksd like straightforward human rights organisations have problems that way - perhaps they should have more scandals! NadVolum (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

The two reputable sources I gave actually do describe the organization itself for the purposes of GNG. Selfstudier (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they republish Euro-Med HRM's description of itself. Per the section of

WP:NCORP that I quoted that isn't considered independent coverage and thus doesn't count towards GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

In your opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the EU Transparency Register's linked "Guidelines for applicants and registrants" it states The information in the Register is provided by the registrants themselves, on the understanding that they are ultimately responsible for its accuracy. The Secretariat monitors the quality of the Register’s content and reserves the right to de-register ineligible registrants, including those found not to observe the code of conduct. Their disclaimer says information is not necessarily comprehensive, complete, accurate or up to date.

Lobbyfacts acknowledges in their disclaimer about the EU Transparency Register As stated on its website, information on the official EU Register is provided by registrants themselves, making it the sole responsibility of those organisations. It is recognised that some entries in the official register are inaccurate, incomplete or otherwise misleading. Based on this information, the EU Transparency Register and those relying on them are not reliable sources because the register does not have reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. S0091 (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Lancet is another example of a clearly independent source, by virtue of the peer-review process. An academic working at a university could write a paper specifically about their own activities at that university and by virtue of the peer-review process the resulting content would still be independently vetted by virtue of the peer-review process. This does not apply to all published literature ofc, but it certainly applies to peer review.

Iskandar323 (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I can't comment about Lancet specifically because I do not have access but what you describe is a reliably published

primary source, so reliable but not helpful for notability. S0091 (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

In this case, the arguably involved author is not the lead author and only one of four contributors, and the topic is not the author, but pertains to research findings, so the work as a whole is perfectly secondary (+ peer review).

Iskandar323 (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Wow. JoelleJay (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:IAR It was correct to nominate this for deletion and it probably doesn't meet a strict interpretation of wp:notability guidlines. But wih the preponderance of sourcing and information, and that having this article exist is more likely to serve the reader than the organization/ one which readers might seek to be informed on, I think that it's an article that should exist in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  To serve our readers it's not enough to present an overview of the organization; we need to present a neutral overview of the organization.

  Unfortunately, that isn't possible if our only significant coverage comes from non-independent sources - and would be a violation of

  WP:V, which says Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. BilledMammal (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @BilledMammal: Again, you were correct to take this to AFD. And per my previous post, I agree that it has not been established that this meets the wp:notability guidlines as written. As a preface, I could come up with strong arguments in either direction on this. I would also have several quibbles with the arguments in your past post. Setting all of that aside, at this venue, this is simplly a "should this article exist?" question, and I gave my opinion on that. I gave my rationale as wp:iar and the usefulness of the article. Another way to state my argument in wp:notability terms is that per the criteria described in Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works this topic is very enclyclopedic and has some importance / impact, making it something that people would be likely to seek an enclyclopedia rticle on, and pushing the wp:notability equation up into the edge case zone. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge with Ramy Abdu. I simply can't find fault with the case BilledMammal has made. Yes, the org's reports are widely mentioned, including in scholarly literature, but there is indeed an almost complete lack of significant and independent coverage of the organisation itself in reliable sources. Happy to reconsider if or when new sources come to light, but we do have rules for a reason. We should follow them. --Andreas JN466 12:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't belong under the founder Ramy Abdu and the content would look silly there. And it wouldn't fit under the current leader Richard A. Falk either. In fact much of the stuff from it wouldn't even mention them. NadVolum (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see HonestReporting has a longer spiel about them at CNN & Other Media Give Voice to Anti-Israel “Human Rights” Organization. NadVolum (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Excluding sources that lack independence, that is probably the most significant coverage I have seen on this organization. We would need multiple such sources to keep the article, but before we count it - and thus add it to the article at a level of prominence that would be appropriate for one of the few sources that are both independent and contain significant coverage of the article - do any editors have any objections to it, such as on grounds of reliability?

  @

  Iskandar323: Comments? BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  They seem to try and avoid the lie direct. We were just raising the question, we're so glad we were wrong - but that's a lot better than NGO Monitor.. NadVolum (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @NadVolum: To be clear, you support using this source prominently in the article? BilledMammal (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I do actually support putting it in, but I see it as a biased source that should be attributed and used with caution. To be quite clear since you like policies, and going to the opposite extreme from what you seem to be implying, see

  WP:N for what is required. In that '"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline', I agree they satisfy that for the purpose of establishing notability. There's no requirement for a lack of bias in doing that and they do seem to have some editorial integrity as I noted just above. Later we have 'Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists', and 'Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article'. According to that just sticking a notability citation on the talk page so it could be found easily would be more than enough. NadVolum (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Strong Keep - RS about them exist!. I think people are not doing their homework. There are significant RS (reliable or relevant sources) out there talking about EMHRM, — they are important enough to be mentioned and described in:
  • ReliefWeb, as service of the United Nations
    OCHA
    ,
  • to be condemned in detail by the pro-Israeli NGO Monitor on the topics of funding, alleged "ties to terror", stances on BDS, etc., funding..., and also a
  • dedicated page condemning them.
  • Pro-Israel group UN Watch has a detailed condemnation in this article
  • This Jerusalem Post article talks about how Al-Jazeera uses EMHRM as a source, and
  • this article in the Doha News talks about "The Geneva-based human rights group has been at the forefront of exposing Israel’s crimes against humanity committed in occupied Palestinian territories.".

None of the above are trivial. Keizers (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through those, I'm not seeing significant coverage of the organization - some of them contain coverage of a specific topic related to the organization, but per

WP:NCORP#Significant coverage of the company itself

that is not sufficient to count towards notability.

Could you provide quotes of the content that you believe consitutes significant coverage of the organization?

I note that the ReliefWeb article is not independent, as it is written by Euro-Med HRM, and NGO Monitor has already been dismissed as unreliable - and I suspect that the editors arguing to keep this article would also reject the UN Watch article. BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing significant coverage of the organization

Did you not read the UN Watch article? How do you construe UN Watch claiming Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor’s leadership routinely posts antisemitic and pro-Hamas content online as being coverage of a specific topic related to the organization? And what topic might that be, may I ask?

When Doha News says

The Geneva-based human rights group has been at the forefront of exposing Israel’s crimes against humanity committed in occupied Palestinian territories

and when they further report that

Israeli institutions... have attempted to spoil Euro-Med’s standing

...exactly what do you think they are talking about, if not about Euro-Med itself? What "other topic" are you alleging they're really covering, to which any mention of Euro-Med is merely ancillary?

I suspect that the editors arguing to keep this article would also reject the UN Watch article.

Reject it how? We are not flat earthers; we agree the article exists, we are not rejecting its existence. That we disagree with the article is besides the point. If tomorrow the entirety of the Israeli consent manufacturing machine started raving 24/7 about how (insert random human rights organization) is actually Hamas and Hitler in a trench coat, as they regularly do from time to time, we might not agree with them, and we would surely find them to be eminently dishonest, yet, nevertheless, the mere fact of such coverage would likely cause the object of their rage to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Even if there weren't other coverage- and in this case, there most assuredly is. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The UN Watch article doesn't contain significant coverage of the organization. Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can tell all it says about the organization is that it's officials, who include Richard Falk and Ramy Abdu, are notoriously biased and antisemitic, and routinely posts antisemitic and pro-Hamas content online. That isn't significant coverage of the organization.

The Doha News article has similar issues; the only independent coverage of the organization, as opposed to coverage of a specific topic related to the organization, in that article is the two quotes you provided, and 29 words don't amount to

WP:SIGCOV

.

As for rejecting the UN Watch article, I've already seen one of the editors arguing to !keep this article argue it is unreliable, and I suspect if I tried to add it to the article it would quickly be reverted - I suspect they won't reply, but let's ping them to ask: @

WP:SIRS sources on the topic would warrant, assuming you don't dispute that it contains SIRS converage? BilledMammal (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

The Doha one looks like it was written by a journalist and is about the organisation. NadVolum (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Jerusalem Post is clearly RS about EMHRM and Doha News while not objective, also clearly writes about the importance of the organization. And ReliefWeb is reliable because the site is operated by the UN and clearly thinks EMHRM is important enough to mention. I am not a guru on Wiki policy but there must be some

WP:COMMON SENSE applied here? Third party journalism about the organization cannot be the only yardstick of notability.Keizers (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

The various reasons have been given above with links to the various policies. Community discussions like this are part of the commmon sense mechanism of Wikipedia, it can agree a consensus exception from a rule. Those rules - policies and guidelines however are the result of a lot of prior editing decisions and discussions so good reasons have to be given for exceptions. The rest of what you say is your presentation of that type of reason. NadVolum (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oi! You've been on Wikipedia since 2006! You'll know far more about all that than me! NadVolum (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, yes but I've never come across this exact degree of stubbornness re original research v. coverage. No doubt because Israel/Palestine is an emotional topic, particularly right now as its victims are livestreamed to our phones every day.Keizers (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Jerusalem Post contains a small amount of coverage of a claim that Euro-Med HRM has made; it doesn't meet the requirements of

WP:NCORP#Significant coverage of the company itself

. If I am mistaken, can you please quote the coverage?

The ReliefWeb source is written by Euro-Med HRM; it doesn't matter whether it is reliable or significant, as it isn't independent. BilledMammal (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep as per Iskandar323, Keizers, and others. Absurd we are even having this debate, and if the main subject that this organization covered were anything other than the situation in Israel and Palestine, I suspect no such discussion would be had. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those points above... exactly what I was trying to express.Keizers (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this organization covered any other subject it would have been an uncontroversial deletion; no compliant coverage and COI editing by the organization usually makes for an easy AfD. BilledMammal (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I miscount, you have now made 24 comments in this AfD, many of them very long and many of them repetitious. This is what

WP:BLUDGEON is about. You should stop. Zero^talk 06:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I was thinking the same thing.

Can I ask why you feel so strongly about deleting this article, @BilledMammal?

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them were concerned with addressing, in considerable detail, unsuitable sources that editors bombarded the discussion with; ideally, editors would have ensured the sources they provided aren't obvious

WP:NCORP failures, but since they didn't I had to detail the issues. However, since you're here, do you care to comment on whether you consider HonestReporting and UN Watch sufficiently reliable for use in the article? BilledMammal (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

(Now 25) I have stated my opinion that this organization is notable. I still hold that opinion, and believe it is obvious on its face and does not rest on the reliability of either HR or UNWatch. I also find your repeated pings to border on harassment. Zero^talk 07:00, 13 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.

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.

There is consensus that an article should not exist at this title. There are several conflicting suggestions as to where to merge or redirect to. I would consider "no consensus", resulting in an effective keep of the article which nobody seems to favour, to be a poor option. I have therefore slightly arbitrarily decided the closure should be to redirect to Freedom Township, Ellis County, Kansas as it seems to have slightly more support than others, but nothing should be taken as preventing editors from retargeting if it transpires that there's a better choice, nor from merging any content they may wish to merge. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easdale, Kansas

Easdale, Kansas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

A blatant example of a 4th class post office not being a town, as it geolocates onto a farm that is still there. And no, redirecting to Pfeifer, Kansas is a bad idea as they are not the same place. Mangoe (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• comment The local paper indicates this is a real place. I'll have to dig more tomorrow and vote.James.folsom (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Pfeifer, Kansas. They're two miles apart and might as well be the same place, plus the post office that is the only basis for the existence of this article moved there. I am unable to find any evidence Easdale was ever more than a post office.Jbt89 (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Pfeifer is a documented hamlet that is in the Blackmar Cyclopaedia, as can be seen at Ellis County, Kansas#Hamlets. Easdale is not in Blackmar, and not in Gannett's Gazetteer either. It is not a documented anything except the former name of the Pfeifer post office. Everything in this article except that one fact is unsupportable; and all the stuff in the infobox and elsewhere is boilerplate copied into numerous Kansas articles. Uncle G (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to where decided It's a location that people refer to as a place, there no articles in the papers that say anything about the place. I know there was a post office there, and that might be all. There is an Easdale school mentioned many times, that was likely there. Your not going to find enough significant material for an article on it. Its probably worth mentioning that it existed on the the county and or township pages.James.folsom (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 08:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: In the Hayes Free Press of Oct 10, 1900 it makes a reference to A.N. Horn selling his home to "Jim Grippen of Easdale".[21]. A few other stray references to Easdale like that in the late 1870s until about 1900 also exist. A 1905 atlas of Ellis County shows a Jas Grippin and Wm Grippin with land around the geographical location we have for the former Easdale post office.[22] When this article was created in 2018 it was not correct to term it a "small settlement" based merely on the existence of a post office; but us veterans on these AfDs are aware that midwestern U.S. post offices were set up in many places in the 1800s that never became towns. The article got worse in 2021 when edited to say it was a "ghost town". In my opinion, "ghost town" is way over-used on wikipedia on articles on little place names like this, it really should be used for abandoned settlements that have or had some remaining buildings and infrastructure. I know Pfeifer, Kansas is not understood to be the same place (but I don't know where the GPS coordinates for Easdale first came from?), but that article's discussion of Easdale makes a decent case for a redirect there. And the 1887 newspaper mentions say the post office name was changed, not moved (though perhaps it was moved).[23]. Apparently the Easdale PO was in Rush County when it was established in 1878.[24][25] There seems to have been a border change between the counties of Rush and Ellis at some point.[26] --Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me add, I found this 1963 article in the Hays Daily News on the history of Pfeifer, and it describes the community as moving in 1884 to its current location. It says the former location was "in Section 25-14-17 of Freedom Township". You can find the township map of 1905 here[27]. Pfeifer is plainly now in the northwest corner of Section 36, as depicted in the 1905 map here [28]. The new location definitely seems to be south of the original location, since Section 25 is north of 36. The settlers (who were Volga Germans) first came in 1876, so it seems no surprise that the Easdale PO was established as needed in the area by 1878, and it made sense to move/rename the PO by the time that happened in 1887. "Easdale", of course, it not a German name, but a Scottish island. Before the Volga Germans started arriving in Ellis County in 1876, a George Grant is said to have brought over 300 Englishmen starting around 1872, but a "grasshopper scourge" in 1874 caused many to leave, and eventually the Volga Germans took their place.[29] The first postmaster of the Easdale PO was "Rollo A. Burnham", not a German name.[30] A "James A. Maine" took over late in 1878.[31] Looks like he was still there in 1885.[32] So it makes sense that a name like "Easdale" wouldn't stay on when a German majority took over the area.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ellis County, Kansas#History has the grasshoppers already, notice. And the coördinates come from two GNIS computer database records. The first set is the coördinates in the article at hand, which is a "locale". The second set is an "Easdale, see Pfeifer", which is a "ppl" and repeats the (different) coördinates for Pfeifer. Alas, the same person who gave us the false ghost-townery in Special:Diff/1058765611 and other articles is the same person filling these Kansas articles with every-article-has-the-same-boilerplate-junk-history at Special:Diff/721974070 and the like. Uncle G (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can find the second set of coordinates which matches Pfeifer at nationalmap.gov, but not a link for the coordinates used on this article in a GNIS search. The original citation upon creation was just to "http://geonames.usgs.gov", and searching "Easdale" there only leads to the Pfeifer reference you note. I was just wondering where it came from, because I've run across this issue before.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's far from original. That's just a WWW interface that the USGS set up to access the computer database. Not everything is "a link".

        Back in the 1980s, this database was available on magnetic tape and was even printed out on paper, bound, and sold in book form. Ironically, Google then digitized the books, so it's possible to find out what the feature classes, which were squashed a few years ago, used to be years ago. This has confused several people in past AFD discussions who don't realize that what's available on a WWW site was once available as this "National Gazetteer of the United States", being exactly the same thing and exactly as bogus, before the World Wide Web was invented, because the

        Hog Back, Kansas (AfD discussion) and why it's not a settlement (the German settlers choosing not to settle it), because it's all in Francis S. Laing's history of the German-Russian Settlements in Ellis County, Kansas.

        Uncle G (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

        ]

• Thanks for taking the time to set out all that background info, Uncle G. Re the last point, I'm sure others have noticed this too, but I think there's a bias in wikipedia towards including more historical details in smaller geographical unit articles. Moving details into county and state and regional articles requires a more deft understanding of historical context. E.g., knowing that these immigrants weren't really Russian, as some sources may say. The bias towards calling things "ghost towns" that aren't isn't a wikipedia-only problem. Indeed, the 1971 article[33] I just cited in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mendota, Kansas-- which is definitely a moving rural post office -- calls it a "ghost town". I understand the frustration of folks like you and Mangoe, we are fighting inherently irrational human behavior here which seeks to imbue place names with more history and meaning than perhaps they deserve. For the mercy of whoever closes this discussion, i'm not saying "Easdale" should be kept. I'm just interested in confirming the GNIS data and seeing whether that's where the first location of Pfeifer (which also wasn't really a town) was.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "confirming the GNIS data and seeing whether that's where the first location of Pfeifer".

  Recognizing that not every GNIS point was a village does not mean one has to interpret that GNIS data is full of error. The choice of some locations, like Easdale, does seem to be based on local primary sources at the time the point was set. Want to feel old? Try having living memory of landmarks that GNIS points were set on, but destroyed later, and have editors thereby question veracity. Yes, any truth of a GNIS point does not inherently convey WP notabilty.

  Living memory is not RS, but I feel there is room for improvement in bedside manner. Consider that the postmaster of one of these village post offices took care of me after my mother died, and Dad would say I would call her "Mom". Fr. Burkey wrote on Easdale as a post office that served early Pfeifer, but was then replaced by the Pfeifer post office, which once "really existed", even if maybe no one in Pfeifer today can remember where it was. Careful saying Pfeifer is not a town, people live there on platted streets; it is at least a village with a beautiful Fencepost limestone cathedral. Let us be careful in the tone and words we use as we necessarily delare locations as non-nontable.

  I see ECHS maps an Easedale Cemetary. About a year ago I was going over the perenial Hays Daily News Autumn lists of 1800s cemeteries; so I might go back and look what was said about Easedale Cemetery, if anything. What I recall was that some of these prairie cemeteries were family plots and others were just where a wagon load of travelers died, and the typical caretaker was some old man with no realtionship to those buried. I make no suggestion now that "Easedale Cemetery" had any connection with "Easedale PO", or any settlement.

  Regarding any merge, I would suspect, though, that Easdale, as a topic, is closer to Pfeifer than to Ellis County. IveGoneAway (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The little we know about this place simply validates that it was a PO, and barring a surplus of Stella-Rondo-type family dynamics in the surrounding areas, no one lived at this PO.

JoelleJay (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - This was a real place, it is listed on the Kansas state Map: https://www.macpl.org/atlases/1903/Kansas%20State%20Map.pdf 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We know it was a place, 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎, i.e, a post office in someone's house. But if this is your inclusionist method to cause Mangoe and Uncle G to have a stroke and stop nominating articles like this, it may work.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That aside, from a geologist perspective, I honestly enjoyed this map for the canals around Dodge; I did not know that. And I had not thought of South Fork Pawnee River as an old channel of the Arkansas. Thanks. IveGoneAway (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Not a town, sure, but a known community in the papers 1880 to 1904. Several mentions of meetings at the Easdale school house, mostly a hotbed of Socialists ... (so they called my Republican grandad).

• 1887 All Aboard for Munjor, Easdale, Pfeifer, Hutchinson and Wichita ATSF RR proposed to run through these backwater Podunks. This line was really built, but only got as far as Galena, Kansas.
• 1890 Methodist circuit preachers meeting at Easdale. Well, there you go. Methodists were an exceedingly rare bird in southern Ellis County.
• 1894 Fencepost limestone was quarried for sale at Easdale. Well, of course .... just miles south of the Basilica of St. Fidelis, all built of fencepost limestone.
• 1922 A cemetery marked in Section SE 24-15-17 that the ECHS reports for the community.
• 1899 "EASDALE The executive committee of the Sunday school association will be at the Easdale school ...." Probably them Protestants again ...
• 1888 "The Sunday School convention at Easdale last week was a grand success. They return their thanks to those from Hays who attended ..."
• 1892 Peoples Democratic Parties political meeting at Easdale.
• 1893 Peoples Party meeting at Easdale and other Southern EL CO schools.
• 1891 Easdale had a committee, at least three named officers.
• 1888 RePUBlican meeting!?!?
• 1902 School closed?

To be fair, I never knew of Easdale until this week, but then, I had never been in Pfeifer until last April. The first election I remember was Dad taking me with him when he voted at one of the sister schools to Easdale. I make no claim of notabilty, but I acknowledge the community of that time. IveGoneAway (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just adding what I've learned since I voted. Studying other of the post offices since has made it clear that in a lot cases the newspaper mentions are simply using the post office as a point of reference, and when people write into the paper from these postal places, they are simply denoting where they get their mail. It's not necessarily where they live.James.folsom (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, in the sense of "in the vicinity of". In the case of the many classified adds mentioning Easdale, it is really the closest thing to an address. With the dozens of post offices in the county, I don't need to speculate that people would want to walk further than the closest one. The presence of a post office and school do not prove the existence of even a rural community, just that there were enough people around. Interestingly, the Pfeifer farm plots were originally laid out "Russian style", 44 feet wide by 1/2 mile. But across the river, more Jeffersonian quarter sections. Just another tempting suggestion of different groups of settlers. When you get to Victoria/Herzog, there is a big cemetery of hallowed ground for the Catholic parishioners and a tiny one across the road for "everyone else". I see the same thing comparing the Easdale tiny cemetery with the Pfeifer cemetery, a mere two miles apart. Well, don't underestimate the difficulty of crossing the Smoky Hill. No RS for any of this, just fascinating to me. Even in my lifetime though, there was strong coercion in rural EL CO to not sell land outside each parish membership, the same with marriage. Easdale might have been squeezed out, eliminating the need for a separate PO and grocery store and non-parochial school. I know editors have suggested that Easdale was an early site of Pfeifer and/or that the sites merged, but thinking about the parochial communities of the time, I am prone to disagree. I might be wrong. The "Meders of Easdale" were original Easdale settlers; Meders own the old Easdale section today. IveGoneAway (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW I am chatting with a historian who's family founded Victoria, Kansas. As completely German-Catholic the countryside and the town is today, he had to remind me that the founding name is not. Queen Victoria directly funded the original Protestant settlement there. Ahhh, Meder is an English/Irish name and Easdale is also English. IveGoneAway (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Replying to OP Mangoe: I propose Merge with Victoria, Kansas instead of Pfeifer on the basis (to be confirmed) that Easdale was a part of the British Victoria Colony of 1873 and was and still is separate from the 1876 Volga German Pfeifer parish. Easdale settlers were in part if not wholy British and the location is proximal to the Victoria Colony founder ranches; Grant's Villa and the "Scotty" Philip Ranch. The Meder family was among the orginal Easdale settlers, still holds the land, and is a name consistent with the colony. We have names of the Easdale settlers and I have asked for comparison with the registered British colonists. IveGoneAway (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I'll go out on a limb and infer that Easdale and Norfolk were nostalgic post office names for the British colonists who concentrated their "estates" on the low ridge between the Smoky and Big Creek. The number of Victoria colonists was capped just over 200 and they had no real interest in town building, apparently. After the collapse of the British colony, the German villages had little need for little post offices or one-room Protestant schools on the prairie. What is on the EL CO page is good enough, probably. IveGoneAway (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss potential Merge targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to Ellis County, Kansas based on a preference for redirecting rather than outright deleting post offices/rural areas rather than deleting them outright when usage of the name as a place can be demonstrated. I think the county is the best target for a redirect because the relationship between Easdale and the neighboring communities of Pfeiffer and Victoria hasn't been confirmed by an sources that I can see. Probably worth a line in the county article; something like, "In the 1880's a rural post office and school were located at Easdale about 8 miles south of Victoria and 2 miles north of Pfeiffer." Eluchil404 (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Out of curiosity, why the county and not Wheatland Township, Ellis County, Kansas? Jbt89 (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Two reasons, first because Uncle G had mentioned the county article above in the discussion, and second because when I made the comment I was not aware that Kansas counties had named townships with articles that might be an option for a redirect. I have no objection to the township as a target, my primary goal is to help create a consensus to preserve the limited sourced info while removing the incorrect appearance that this was ever a formal settlement or ghost town. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Eluchil404 You can't find a connection between the Easdale PO, school, store, and cemetery and Pfeifer because Pfeifer had their own school, store, and cemetery (especially) and really wanted no connection at that time.

  The evidence of association of Easdale with the Victoria Colony is largely geographic. The Victoria Colony was a concentration (between the Smoky and Big Creek) of estates from Norfolk, to Grant Villa, to Easdale, to Philip Ranch. The south boundary of the Victoria Colony was the Smoky Hill River. source The Duke of Norfolk was a sponsor of the Victoria Colony. George Grant might be from the Grants around Easdale, Scotland. ... the point being, Norfolk and Easdale were born and died with the colony, not Pfeifer, not EL CO.

  @ Jbt89 Two reasons, first, Easdale was in Freedom Township, two, township boundaries in this county are wibbly-wobbly over time ...

  Here is a good map of the remnants of the colony shortly before the Easdale school and PO closed. There's that railroad that ATSF advertised as building through Easdale.

  Ellis Co Townships have been significantly restructured recently. I could dig into that with over time.

  I have some name lists now, but I can't work with them over this weekend.

  IveGoneAway (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC) 15:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Freedom Township, Ellis County, Kansas. Most of the above discussion of the Victoria colony seems like original (though sensible and relevant) research, so I don't think a merge with Victoria, Kansas makes sense. It has convinced me that Easdale (the post office and associated rural area) likely has a different origin than Pfeiffer, though, so any merger or redirect should go to an article about the surrounding countryside (the township being the obvious candidate), not the town of Pfeiffer. I've gone ahead and added a history section to that article and given it a couple sentences about the Easdale post office, so deleting this article won't cause the information in it to be lost. Jbt89 (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You might add the home of the Victoria Colonist's founder, George Grant's Villa, to the Freedom Township article. By RS, it is in Section 8 of Freedom Township. More notable to the township than either Duck Creek or Eagle Creek, and critical to the British colonists there, Big Creek clips the township (Grant's Villa faces Big Creek). There is also the Norfolk "hamlet".

  Merging Easdale with Freedom Township is practical, as the least resistance path. I don't deny that as presented the establishment of the Easdale PO by the Victoria Colonists is "OR", I did say it is circumstantial and needing confirmation, and I have not added it to any article. I do have some citations to support it, but failing a colonists name, even Grant's, on the post office application, there is no certainty that the Victoria Colony founded that PO. (Even then there is some synthysis, I suppose.) IveGoneAway (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good stuff. Adding it to the Freedom Township history section now. Jbt89 (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, (after another 3 mile hike-think) this is the best redirect target, thanks. If I ever get into the Grant Folder in the basement of the Hays Public Library and come up witha few more solid RS, and want to change the redirect, that would be a good problem. IveGoneAway (talk) 21:38, 11 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sloan Science in Film Awards

Sloan Science in Film Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about a film award, not

Update: the article's now up to 425 footnotes, instead of 248 at the time of nomination yesterday, but even the new stuff is still almost entirely primary sources rather than third-party coverage. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I honestly think the article should be deleted though. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Awards, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The fact that there's a whopping 317 sources coming from pretty much the same site, and that one of them isn't even properly referenced, just shows that the user who created the page needs to learn that there's other sources they can find. I would suggest probably (but not sure) the New York Times. I don't know if they talk about science, but something like that works.

  NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I thought that I had found some sources, but they turned out to be about the more specific topic of the Alfred P. Sloan Prize. Uncle G (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:TNT. While I found sources for these awards in industry publications (such as Deadline, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter) and was leaning to support, I'm realizing these are a bunch of different programs that just so happen to be administered by the same foundation. The three linked articles cover a prize at Sundance (which already has its own article), grants and fellowships, and student awards, each of which is distinct. As best as I can tell, the "Sloan Science in Film Awards" are exclusively the awards and grants presented at Sundance; this article synthesizes a scope that goes well beyond that. Since the entire scope of the article needs to be reworked, it's probably best to delete it and start over. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I'll refine what I said after more research: the Sloan Science in Film Awards seems to be a term sometimes used for awards from Sloan Science & Film, which presents lots of awards each year. (A search for "Sloan Science in Film Awards" in quotes gets a few hits from Sundance, hence my original comment, but I don't think it's the sole term for those Sundance awards.) The awards are unrelated outside the foundation sponsoring them. It would be okay to mention the different awards at the

  selection criteria. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:23, 9 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.

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.

Tadeusz Werno

Tadeusz Werno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability not established with substantive sources, only a context-free database entry with the dates of appointment. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 21:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 21:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:33, 6 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.

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 keep‎. Star Mississippi 03:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elmer Osmar Ramón Miani

Elmer Osmar Ramón Miani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability not established with substantive sources, only a context-free database entry with the dates of appointment. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 21:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 21:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In general we have kept Catholic bishops (and bishops of other major denominations). There is huge precedent and consensus for this. See
  WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Clergyoutcomes is NOT a notability guideline. Even if it says bishops are often kept, it does NOT say they are exempt from notability requirements, and doing nothing but referencing that is a circular argument. That's a bad precedent if there's not actually significant coverage on the topic. If nothing can be said except that he was bishop, it should be redirected to Roman Catholic Diocese of Catamarca. Reywas92^Talk 13:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What it does is illustrate consensus, one of the concepts upon which Wikipedia is founded. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The reason
  WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES exists for Catholic bishops is that they are reliably covered extensively once you dig into it, although those sources may not all be available online. Jahaza (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per Jahaza. A cursory gsearch turns up a few obituaries and mentions. As per the other bishop, there are more sources likely available offline. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 03:48, 14 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.

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 Ellis County, Kansas. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Back, Kansas

Hog Back, Kansas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

A Union Pacific passing siding/station, not a town: even the only real source in the article says so. Mangoe (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm sorry but I can't even imagine what you're talking about. There are three sources, all of which say it is or was a town. Even if it wasn't, deletion isn't remotely necessary or appropriate, and you could have proposed a redirect to Yocemento, Kansas or Ellis County, Kansas. Either way, you've blown past the existing sources and past the extensive plans detailed by the illustrious expert editor IveGoneAway on the Talk page. Anyway, this is not what AfD is for. @IveGoneAway: Hi. — Smuckola(talk) 06:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You clearly have not looked at these "existing sources". The first is the GNIS, which project:Reliability of GNIS data deals with. And the third is literally a name on a map with zero information, that has been interpreted by the article writer. Uncle G (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Yocemento, Kansas. This was the name of the old railroad siding in Yocemento and retained that name when the railroad moved the siding three miles west. Reference (1) says as much, reference (2) says the former Hog Back is now called Yocimento, and reference (3) is just the name of the siding shown on a map. Content of article (including additions planned on the talk page) can, and should, be merged into the article on Yocemento. Jbt89 (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm having a great deal of trouble with this, as it seems to me that all these claims about moving the siding are based on
    original research in examining old maps, and it does not seem to me that those maps are inconsistent with the Hog Back siding never having moved, and Yocimento having been put in later some three miles east. The first map in particular does nothing to resolve the matter, as it places the siding at a spot midway between the two modern sidings; but it is also, shall I say it, a bit vague, and the other map is even more so. The other thing is that, however long Hog Back may have been the original name of the Yocimento siding, it wasn't so very long, and they have been two distinct places for well over a century. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • You're right, I might have it backwards - the siding may have remained unchanged while the town of Yocemento grew up just east of it. Still, shared history and geographic proximity makes Hog Back a feature of Yocemento rather than an independent place IMO, and there are plenty of sources stating as much. Note that this edition of the National Gazetteer lists the map location for Hog Back Station (historical) as Yocemento on page KS125.

      Reference (2) in the article appears to originate from page 480 of the Collections of the Kansas State Historical Society [34], where it states that Hog Back is "now Yocemento." Jbt89 (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • That National Gazetteer is merely a paper printout of the
        ISBN 9780700624140., p.85
        Uncle G (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply