Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Federation for Human Rights


 * 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. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor Talk! 08:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

International Federation for Human Rights

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Relatively small non notable organization, whose only claim to importance is that it is associated with or part of some umbrella groups, which also have some members that are in fact notable. RThe contents are either its internal affairs of no interest to anyone outside the organization, of its listing of worthy goals.

We have tended to give a free pass on both notability and promotionalism to groups with noble purposes that we approve of. That's not the right approach for an encycopedia.  DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am a tad confused on this article. The group themselves seems to refer to themselves mostly by their acronym and the usage of The International Federation for Human Rights and the International Federation of Human Rights varies. They themselves are a umbrella group, though most active outside the English speaking world from what I can gather - I suspect more sources exist in other languages. A couple of notable groups are members of this group, the Center for Justice and Accountability, SUARAM, Human Rights in China and the Center for Constitutional Rights being some. They also appear to be used as an expert group by the media; 1, 2, 3, 4. And it has existed for nearly a 100 years. Surely there is more out there?  JT dale Talk ~ 13:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah. Found out why the name is a mess. It's a translation; the group is French and is official name is the La Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l'Homme; 5  JT dale Talk ~ 13:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: Yes, the article is poorly sourced, but, as JTdale pointed out, the organization seems to be a well-known and well-respected organization in Europe whose expertise is often called upon by the media, which I think satisfies WP:ORGDEPTH. Also, the organization has a long history, and judging it based on the lack of sources online strikes me as a form of recentism. I also think it's very significant that the FIDH is the oldest human rights organization in the world; I don't know if that's attracted the requisite widespread attention, but if it has, that would also satisfy WP:NGO. -- Irn (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, most educational and encyclopedic. Also, WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP, but sources do exist out there for further quality improvement of the article's contents. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep only if this can be improved which I question because my searches found nothing better than some of the same links at Books, News and highbeam. SwisterTwister   talk  06:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - One of those situations when language barrier poses a challenge but what is known about the subject suggests sources are available. I would presume being the oldest such organization is a good indicator of notability (i.e. it doesn't mean it's notable, but just like winning an Oscar award, having an endowed professorship, or a charting album don't take the place of sources but indicate sources should be available). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The organisation's webpage www.fidh.org  is in perfectly sound English with translated options, albeit with a European flavour of presentation.  To call this a relatively small non -notable organisation seems absurd; their page says that it's pushing a century old, has a multi million dollar budget and broad international presence.  The webpage is current and recently updated which indicates a good professionalism in their staff. I'd label it a long established significant player in the field of human rights and monitoring.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreedAshmore2013 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 24 September 2015 (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.