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


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

The result was no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. 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)

Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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


 * 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)
 * 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)

Survey

 * Delete per nominator. JM (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. The large number of sources obviously indicates notability even if some of them don't count. BilledMammal provides no evidence of the claim of 9 paid editors, and anyway a quick look at the history shows a large number of edits by experienced editors in good standing. Mentions that are not just in passing are frequently used as indicating notability: when an independent source discusses something done by the organization or cites and analyses (even in disagreement) something published by the organization, that counts. Zerotalk 07:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * If we cannot see the evidence how can we determine whether it holds up? Wickster12345 (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Actually the 2015 deletion was on the basis of only 3 delete votes and the  2021 AfD was closed as no consensus. So the story is more complex than that. Zerotalk 11:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Keep: This is a very prominent human rights monitor that is abundantly covered well in excess of the requirements of WP:GNG. There are ample references to it in academic literature, as a casual WP:BEFORE search would have shown - and one has to question if one was in fact performed. In this paper published in The Lancet, the top pedigree medical journal, it is one of two esteemed sources referenced for basic on-the-ground information-gathering alongside UNRWA. In at least two recent instances:, UNRWA published press releases about Euro-Med's recent fact-finding activities, so this monitor notably operates in an ongoing capacity in UN circles. These reports are needless to say routinely picked up by RS. The evidence for notability is all over the internet, and overwhelming. This nomination is incomprehensible and the aspersions about paid-editing largely unsupported. I'm pretty sure I've edited this page in the last 12 months, and I certainly wasn't paid. The nominator has assessed the sources on the page, but could they clarify if they performed a proper WP:BEFORE or not? I suspect not, and the wise thing to do here would be to withdraw the nomination before it wastes any more community time. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I conducted a WP:BEFORE. Looking through your links, I don't see any that are independent, reliable, and significant coverage - and I don't believe you are asserting that they are. Perhaps you - or any of the other editors who support keeping the article - can provide WP:THREE sources they believe do meet that criteria so we can assess the opposition to this nomination on the basis of the evidence? A small correction to your comment; UNRWA doesn't publish press releases about Euro-Med's recent fact-finding activities, they republish Euro-Med's press releases. BilledMammal (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Watchdog Submits Evidence of Israeli Executions of Gaza Civilians to UN, ICC in Common Dreams Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 5) Allegations of Organ Theft by Israel Add Insult to Injury in Gaza Politics Today Selfstudier (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * #4 and #5 are the same as #1; maybe containing SIGCOV of a report from Euro-Med HRM, but not SIGCOV of the organization itself. If I have missed such coverage, please quote it; otherwise, can you please provide WP:THREE sources that comply with the requirements of WP:NCORP? BilledMammal (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * WP:CRUNCHBASE; that source is deprecated
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * Meets GNG, prove otherwise. Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think BilledMammal has already done so above. Thoroughly, as usual. JM (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Like the last time? Selfstudier (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 by Richard A. Falk,   by Reliefweb,   by Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency. NadVolum (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, none of those sources are independent. Falk is the chairman of the Euro-Med HRM, the ReliefWeb article is a republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release, and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency is a major donor to the Euro-Med HRM (about a million USD per year) and created the report in that context. is about a different organization with a very similar name.
 * Further, the second two don't constitute WP:SIGCOV; they both fail WP:NCORPs requirement that sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. BilledMammal (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC) Updated BilledMammal (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Oh dear how bad. I suppose then you'd also find NGO Monitor's article about it is trivial or unreliable? NadVolum (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at the source, it might just scrape by the WP:SIGCOV requirements, through the paragraphs where it says Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor does not publish any financial date on its website, reflecting a complete lack of transparency and accountability and Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor (Euro-Med Monitor) consistently spreads blood libels and conspiracy theories about Israel, and accuses Israel of “apartheid,” genocide,” “ethnic cleansing,” “collective punishment,” and “war crimes.” The rest is limited to quotes from Euro-Med and affiliated individuals and thus doesn't contribute to WP:SIGCOV as the quotes aren't independent coverage.
 * I think it's too brief, but reasonable minds might disagree. The larger concern is whether it is reliable and thus suitable to both count towards notability and be used in the article. I'm not convinced that it is, but what do the four of you think? BilledMammal (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Keep GNG met and situation improved relative to previous nomination.Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Why do you believe that the article is not neutral? Selfstudier (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Delete I looked at the first 15 references expecting to see a few at least that passed WP:SIRS, which is unfortunate as its a very laudable organisation. It seems it doesn't pass WP:NCORP.   scope_creep Talk  14:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion appears to have been canvassed (five and a half days ago, as I write), in a partisan manner, at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Very unlikely to have been paid but still connected so COI holds. NadVolum (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 . 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 . NadVolum (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Keep per Iskandar323 et al. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For ease of review by other editors and the closer, I've created a table of all sources presented in the AfD.


 * 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:INHERITORG and WP:NCORP in mind when doing so. BilledMammal (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * @BilledMammal your source assessment is missing a column for Secondary, which is important because what a subject/those affiliated say is a 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)
 * Unfortunately the template doesn't include a row for that; I'll see about including it. BilledMammal (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

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


 * Keep - Passes GNG. Could use a good pruning, article suffers from bloat. Carrite (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Based on the analysis of the sources, everything is either a passing mention, or implicates WP:NOTINHERITED, or is not independent of the subject. If some people think I have a 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 Inclusionism versus Deletionism is about. NadVolum (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. Zerotalk 06:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * WP:NCORP, specifically WP:ORGIND, addresses this question directly:
 * 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)
 * OK, you don't get it, that's fine. Selfstudier (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 Humanitarian Law Project and The Hague Justice Portal. That portal is much less likely to ever have stuff written about it but it is important and widely used. Their support for it cited 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * In your opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Wow. JoelleJay (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wow. JoelleJay (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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).
 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * 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 JN 466 12:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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)
 * 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?
 * Comments? BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * To be clear, you support using this source prominently in the article? BilledMammal (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * "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)
 * 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: Any objection to including content from UN Watch in the article - and if no objection, any objection to including it with the level of promience that one of the few 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)
 * The Doha one looks like it was written by a journalist and is about the organisation. NadVolum (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. 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)


 * 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)
 * Thank you for those points above... exactly what I was trying to express.Keizers (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. Zerotalk 06:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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:SIRS and 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)
 * (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. Zerotalk 07:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.