Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Project against Hate and Extremism


 * 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. Consensus is clear that sourcing is insufficient. Happy to provide n Draft if someone wants to incubate Star   Mississippi  00:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Global Project against Hate and Extremism

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

None of the secondary sources cited in the article are about the organization. They cite some reports or declarations by the organization, or people affiliated with the organization, but they do not provide significant coverage about the organization. The most "in-depth" source seems to be The Irish Times, which includes a full paragraph about it, but that is still not significant. So it does not pass WP:ORGCRIT. MarioGom (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Organizations,  and Alabama. MarioGom (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. I reviewed every source in the article, and spend substantial time reviewing Google News search results. The nominator's description is correct. There are ~250 sources either mentioning a report by this org, or quoting someone from this org, but I can find no significant coverage on the org itself. The Irish Times source appears to be the best - and that "paragraph" is actually a single sentence. It seems reasonably likely that it will become Notable in the future, but not now. I would endorse moving the page to draft space or userspace, if someone wants to adopt it and watch for future significant coverage. Note: Given the impressive range of sources citing this group, it is tempting to say it "deserves" an article. However Wikipedia Notability is not based on importance or worthiness. We require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to ensure we can build a proper article in compliance with all of our policies. Right now this article is almost entirely a promotional vehicle for things that the org itself has said - and that is because there is an absence of outside sourcing to use. I'm sure the article author did the best they could with what they had available, but that's not enough to comply with WP:NPOV and other policies. Imaging we had an article on a hate group, and that article was almost entirely built from things they had said about themselves. We can't build a compliant and Neutral encyclopedic article without significant coverage in independent sources. Alsee (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ”Right now this article is almost entirely a promotional vehicle for things that the org itself has said - and that is because there is an absence of outside sourcing to use” That’s just not true, at least as the article stands today. There’s only one primary source in the article, two if you count expert testimony to the US House of Reps. Both are used just once. If independent reliable sources are quoting the org, or a founder in her capacity as founder, or relaying findings of the org, that goes towards notability. That’s not what you’re calling promotion, I hope! 78.18.239.47 (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 78.18.239.47 I was using "promotional" in exactly the way you hoped I was not. We often use "promotional" in a negative sense, but I was actually attempting to avoid a negative implication here. Our neutrality policy requires that we summarize what independent reliable sources say about a subject. We lack significant coverage of that sort here. The article makes a best effort, but it's basically stuck either quoting the organization itself, or quoting people who quote the organization. Under policy those quotes are not independent, they are insufficient for us to produce a present a Neutral point of View of the org, and they do not qualify to support Notability. It is impossible for us to create a policy-compliant article. Any such article is unavoidably a promotional vehicle for the org's own statements, because we have nothing else available. We need multiple sources that devote a fair number of sentences writing about the org, rather than merely quoting it. Once we have that threshold, we can supplement the article using statements from org itself. Alsee (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A point of requiring independent and reliable sources is that subjective opinions about whether the coverage constitutes promotion or denigration are irrelevant. The reliability and independence of the sources here are uncontested. I understand that you want more secondary comment but descriptions of the org and brief bios of the founders exist and it’s obvious to me that outlets that report on their reports are taking significant notice of them. 78.18.234.190 (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per (and commendation on the effort!). I actually believe the Irish Times source in its entirety is about the org, because its other paragraphs use "GPHAE", an abbreviation for it. However, a single extensive source is not enough imo. There are a few other sources about its founder Heidi Beirich, but those would only help establish notability for a bio article. Having read that the org was founded only in 2020, I believe that this might be a case of  LordPickleII  ( talk ) 20:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I searched the archives of the New York Times and learned that this organization has been mentioned six times in recent years, but all were passing mentions of the form "Beirich of the GPHE said such and such about this hate group". I agree that this organization may well become notable at any time, if a few reliable sources decide to publish articles about the group instead of just mentioning its reports and the comments thats its leader made. So, I would not oppose turning the article into a draft. Cullen328 (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The Global Project Against Hate and Extremism is an active organisation founded by notable research leads, with more recent substantial reports than the comments above. Their work to date has had a profound effect for such a relatively new and small organisation. Premature deletion would be regrettable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.253.24 (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Deletion would not be a comment on the worthiness of the organisation, only on its notability. After all, we have articles about many bad people and bad organisations and we have no articles about huge numbers of good people and organisations. That said, if you are aware of any reliable coverage of this organisation, as an organisation, that might save the article then please let us know. DanielRigal (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a profile piece by Bryan Wall in The Beacon titled "An Interview with Heidi Beirich of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism: 'We stand by our reporting'". Now cited in the History section of the page. 109.78.253.24 (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems to be an interview by a blogging site. Blogs are, in general, not reliable sources. They can sometimes be used to cite simple facts, but don't help with establishing notabiltiy, and as a result, not with this Deletion discussion. Please understand that we are not trying to do a "premature deletion". I personally find the work this org does to be very valuable, and am hopeful and, by current trajectory, optimistic that they will evantually become notable enough to have this article re-created. Such things are not unusual. However, we can't make exceptions for things we may be sympathetic towards, our policy must apply to all equally. – LordPeterII ( talk ) 15:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Comr Melody Idoghor  (talk)  21:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep the argument that Wikipedia could and should have multiple articles on individual reports of this org (from a quick look at least two reports are uncontroversially notable) rather than one article on the org and its work seems unpersuasive. It would be nonsensical make-work to require two (or more) less comprehensive articles in its stead. A band with multiple album reviews should not have its page deleted on the grounds that it should have multiple articles for each notable album but no parent article. If anything it would make more sense to merge the album articles to a parent article. I also think that nearly all the many media reports noticing this org tell their readers what the org is. This is by definition non-trivial, not a listing, not a passing mention. To discount it because it may be to a greater or lesser extent “brief” seems tortuous when the rest of the article gets on with detailing the org’s work. Thinking of other ways to include this info, a redirect to a new section of, say, the notable Heidi Beirich seems unsatisfactory because she is only a co-founder of the org …and Wikipedia has no page for her in any case. 78.18.239.47 (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Specifically, report 1: NBC, and again , detailing how in the wake of the report Twitter & Google took action. Report 2: Irish Times , MSN/Irish Independent , PinkNews . Report 3: Irish Examiner , Forbes The deletion position can only be that no two of these are instances of taking significant notice of the org but I don’t see that that holds. Additionally, the founders are cited in their capacity as founders 9 or 10 times in each of the New York Times and Washington Post, as well as by NPR, TIME, CNN, etc. And various general descriptions of the org exist in these outlets and others. 78.18.234.190 (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment on relisting: It seems unnecessary. Four longstanding editors (counting the AFD nominator), each with thousands or tens of thousands of edits, all gave delete arguments citing relevant policies and/or evaluating the sources. Two IP's participated, which is welcome and appropriate. Anyone is welcome here if they bring relevant new information or present arguments aligning with Wikipedia policy. I find the keep votes unpersuasive in light of Wikipedia policy. They substantially amount to WP:INHERITED claims for Notability, misunderstanding of passing mention, and the like. This organization may well be doing good things, it may well pass the inclusion criteria to have a Wikipedia article in the future, but unfortunately it doesn't currently satisfy WP:Notability. I welcome anyone else who wishes to respond here, but I would suggest that the current response is sufficient for a consensus result even if the relisting brings no one new. Alsee (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The relister probably has a few edits too. Among deletion opiners, LordPeterII considers the Irish Times piece a fine source for our purposes, so perhaps he also misunderstands, or you do, or opinions differ. 78.18.234.190 (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I stand by my vote, as one source is not enough. WP:SIRS contains an example of a neat "source assessment table" (which I don't have energy to create here), which illustrates more visually the issue: Yes, the Irish Times is usable here imo, but almost anyone you ask would say significant coverage or multiple sources do not imply one suffices. We would need, in my personal opinion, at least three sources of the quality of the Irish Times, which means two are lacking. I am quite optimistic that in the future, these lacking sources will eventually appear, and the article will eventually be re-instated (at least I hope that, there's no certainty about the future). So yes, opinions differ. The relist didn't hurt though, and the closing editor needs to evaluate the strength of arguments anyway. – LordPeterII ( talk ) 10:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I added links under my keep which I think rise to the same standard. 78.18.253.136 (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I checked these. Reliable sources certainly, but still only passing mentions. They discuss an issue, quote people, and then briefly mention GPAHE. If I had a discussion with my friend, who'd at some point say "... oh yes, and the report is from Global Project against Hate and Extremism, check them out if you like. Anyway, as I was saying ..." I wouldn't tell others that my friend was talking about GPAHE primarily or extensively (not sure if this allegory is the best, but eh). Mentioning twice or even just once that an organization exists does not suffice, even if some of their products, reports, or members are discussed. But I think we must agree to disagree here, and leave the decision to the closing admin. – LordPeterII ( talk ) 18:55, 19 September 2022 (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.