Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor


 * 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. – bradv 🍁  01:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Apparently non-notable Human Rights Organization. Was created by an individual affiliated with the organization in an undisclosed COI, and recreated under several names by that individual in an attempt to avoid deletions, following a previous AFD. A review of provided sources does not suggest notability, nor does a broader search; while the organization is semi-frequently quoted by a limited number of sources, there does not appear to be any content about the organization as a whole - and notability is not inherited. BilledMammal (talk) 07:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 07:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 07:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I think this claim doesn't seem accurate. The organization is quite well-known, and it issues joint statements with major international human rights institutions and its publications are always quoted in international media.
 * The sources and citations on the page may not be up to date but this does not mean at all that the page should be deleted. It just may need to be supported by other, more notable sources.
 * Here are some links that support my view:


 * https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/michael-smith-uae-prison-mps-b1813663.html
 * https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jordan-arrests-hundreds-of-teachers-after-violent-clashes-zzg7ppsvh
 * https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1384921/EU-border-force-coastguard-migrant-boats-mediterranean
 * https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/more-than-90-of-gaza-s-children-suffering-from-trauma-report-finds-1.4613186?mode=amp
 * https://ca.news.yahoo.com/european-parliament-frontex-inquiry-major-033200034.html?guccounter=1
 * https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/07/covid-19-unblock-voice-over-ip-platforms-gulf
 * https://reliefweb.int/updates?search=euro-med
 * --Anassjerjawi (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC) user with less than 500 edits not allowed to edit in this topic area. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. So many problems here. The editor above hasn't properly declared COI on their page, though they did on talk. The article was recreated despite many deletions. As for the merits of the subject, besides COI and previous deletions, the organizations get a few mentions of what it says every so often but sources satisfying the heightened requirements of WP:ORGCRITE are lacking which indicates deletion.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Hello all. In fact, I think that deleting the article is unacceptable, because the organization is one of the most prominent human rights organizations, especially that the organization's logo is used in all international forums and is also a symbol of the human rights portal in copying Wikipedia, and through the Google test and search for the organization we see that it deserves An article on the English Wikipedia, and we see that the article achieves notability, and we believe that the article is encyclopedic, and that the organization is one of the most prominent human rights organizations in issuing human rights reports! Also, the organization specializes in all global issues and does not focus on a specific region, The organization has influence in Europe, where it works to send periodic messages to European ministers about human rights from all over the world, and regarding the argument of "conflict of interest", I do not see it as a convincing reason, and the person who wrote the article did not promote the organization, but wrote in a neutral and unbiased manner biased. He attached all the required references.


 * Sources: 1 / 2 / 3


 * And a message to my dear (BilledMammal) I don't know why you are targeting articles that accuse Israel of being an occupying country! what is your problem ! I wish you to be a neutral person!


 * Greetings --Osps7 (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 20:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - I wasn't able to find much that would help this meet WP:GNG or any of the organisation-specific notability criteria. I have significant concerns, too, about neutrality. The only reliable independent sources I could find were passing mentions in the context of the organisation's own press releases and comments about events or reports produced by the organisation itself. The only independent secondary-source commentary I could find, a. confirmed the organisation exists, b. confirmed it is headquartered in Geneva, and c. asserted that it was outlawed by the Israeli Government in 2016. This means that any article we retain about the organisation could include these three facts and not much else. Anything else would be heavily reliant on primary sources. Again, I don't think it meets our notability requirements and I think it should be deleted. But I would caution those who want it retained (especially those with a conflict of interest) to consider what that might mean. We require organisations to meet our notability criteria for a range of reasons, and being able to factually cover the organisation in a neutral manner is one of them.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed a lot of the puffery and added citation tags in a few places. I don't think it will help (and I still think it should be deleted) but it might help editors to understand just how little we could retain anyway.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've looked at the ten sources provided by Anassjerjawi and Osps7, but unfortunately none of them contribute towards GNG. I won't do a detailed assessment for the moment, but to sum up: the first six provided by Anassjerjawi don't constitute significant coverage of the organization, as while they reference statements by the organization, they don't cover the organization itself. The seventh, meanwhile, is a list of publications by the organization, none of which cover the organization itself, making this source both not significant and not independent.
 * The first by Osps7 doesn't constitute significant coverage of the organization; it is just a summary page on the Libyan Observer's website of the six times that it has referenced statements by the organization in their reporting. The second is the parent page to the seventh provided by Anassjerjawi, with the same reasons apply to it. The third is a link to the organizations LobbyFacts page, a page which is autopopulated with information from the EU transparency register, and in my opinion doesn't constitute significant coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Even reading the article as it currently stands suggests that GNG has been met. Although this is not a major NGO, it is quite well known, they have been invited to address the United Nations HRC here and here, it's reports are cited in reputable sources (books, eg (Escaping the Escape: Toward Solutions for the Humanitarian Migration Crisis, https://books.google.es/books?id=pPp4DwAAQBAJ  p.179),(The Palestine Strategic Report 2016-2017, https://books.google.com/books?id=XMl6DwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y, pp 253, 460, 478, 489), the newsorgs above, it produces many and frequent  reports and analyses in the hr area and although not critical, its worthy of note that it's board of trustees includes several well known personages. The vitriol directed at this organization by Israel and its defenders is almost sufficient for notability by itself. I think it is also worth noting a recent effort to delete an obviously notable article.Selfstudier (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Writing many reports, having a board full of well-known people, and being disliked aren't really things that confer notability, unless those facts have been the subject of significant coverage. Being invited to address the UNHCR, however, is a very different story. If they have - indeed - been invited to do so, I would think that is enough for the organisation to be considered notable. Those two articles you cite certainly confirm they addressed the UNHCR, but doesn't say how that came about. Can anyone show up and make a speech? St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't just show up, there are some rather complicated procedures to follow (Euro-Med has produced a guide for NGOs in that regard). Per what I wrote on the talk page some refs are in the orgs prior naming eg Euromid Observer for Human Rights was one of the NGOs consulted for Report of Gaza inquiry commission HRC 29Selfstudier (talk) 09:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * They could have changed their name a dozen times and it wouldn't make a difference to us, but I appreciate the information. Being invited by the UN to address the UNHCR, to my mind, would be like being cited in a high-quality academic journal. You're notable when people care what you have to say. In this instance, though, they weren't invited (according to their own guide book); they applied for a particular status and then opted to speak. That's very different. If I filled out the right paperwork, I could speak, so that status doesn't really confer notability, I don't think.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 11:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * a)You are not an NGO b)You apply, they accept (or reject), seems like an invite to me. You don't "opt to speak", you are given a time slot, usually 1 or 2 minutes max. Anyway, this discussion is not particularly germane to notability.Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be an NGO, just affiliated with one, and showing up and asking to be included is absolutely not the same thing as being invited. The guideline itself says that you can chose to present in one of x ways and then you ask for a spot. That's very different to a significant organisation taking note of your body of work and asking you to address one of their key councils (which I think would confer notability).  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You have given your opinion several times by now. Repetition doesn't make it so.Selfstudier (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh? My question was a genuine one and I was trying to clarify your assertion. I was ready to change my !vote.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to make you change your vote, I just don't want a prolonged discussion about something not directly relevant to deletion.Selfstudier (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, I think something that would make the organisation notable (and, if true, would likely see this nomination withdrawn) is worth discussing. But okay.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Minor NGO. Some of its reports were mentioned by others, but the NGO itself has not been covered in depth as an organization by reputable sources. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Free1Soul (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a Swiss organisation and likely notable. They're is likely better references out there. It needs slimmed.  scope_creep Talk  09:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - after following the discussion between Selfstudier and Stalwart111, I came to the conclusion that the article deserves to be preserved.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  04:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as currently written, or redirected per WP:ATD to List of human rights organisations, or cut back to a stub (per WP:HEY) with three actual reliable and independent sources (if they can be identified) per policies and guidelines. Not being a major NGO is correct but stating it is "quite well known" is subjective and not proven by sources. See comments below --  Otr500 (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments As an advocate for all things "Human Rights," I am supportive of organizations that work towards that goal. I am struggling to find significant "independent" coverage (what other people have written) about the organization, as opposed to content "from" them, to advance encyclopedia notability. There are hundreds of such organizations worldwide that do not reach that criterion. There are around 80 in the "Euro-Mediterranean" area including the similarly named Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EuroMed Rights or EMHRN), most of which are connected or affiliated with lobbying.
 * What is concerning is the lack of NPOV. Allowing such content as "My friend was banned from travelling to visit his dying mother. This is the price of occupation." is newspaper crap just adding citation clutter and adding political propaganda content. WP:Balance is disregarded by the one-way slant. That is a problem with covering world events in an encyclopedia from one perspective. If any content is to be covered there is an apparently not so well-known fundamental principle (part of Wikipedia's "five pillars") that have to be adhered to. Otr500 (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Per the nom and @Stalwart111. It's just a minor NGO and a review of the article's talk page reveals a slew of conflicts of interest that only heightens the core issue, the lack of WP:SIGCOV of the organization. Wikipedia isn't here for free webhosting or to give your group the veneer of stature. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Interesting that my opinion "not a major NGO" gets an approving nod but that my other opinion "quite well known" doesn't. Sounds like picking and choosing opinions to fit a predisposition. Anyway, by "minor" I mean not yet obtained consultative status (I added a statement and ref about it). As for well known, the parade of wikilinked trustees ought to suffice for now. I have added in a few bits and pieces to improve the article. Idk about the "newspaper crap" or who added it but why does the complaining editor just not delete it? It doesn't seem relevant to anything on a quick glance. At any rate it has nothing to with the bar for deletion which is pitched high for a reason, the only part of the latest comment that is at all relevant to GNG is NPOV and the article is tagged for that already so it will probably get fixed with time.Selfstudier (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, lacks significant in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.