Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedish Doctors 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 This AFD is a mess; there are any number of IP addresses and throwaway accounts coming by to make arguments that have no relation to policy. Once those have been disregarded, only a handful of comments remain, and the balance of these arguments is that there is enough coverage in reliable sources to keep this. . Vanamonde (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Swedish Doctors for Human Rights

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability, verifiability, reliable sources Ylleman (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Living in Sweden and following the news and so forth, I have never heard of this organization. The creating account has only really edited this article, and responded with conspiracy theories and mudslinging when relevance was challenged on the talk page. That challenge was not by me, but by (someone who claims to be) a Swedish doctor with an interest in human rights, who had also never heard of the organization. The organization's web page contains no useful information in establishing its relevance on Wikipedia or importance in Swedish society, and of the links provided as sources for the article, only those that refer to pages on the organization's own web site seem to contain any mention of the organization; all others being articles quoting people who may or may not be members. Ylleman (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A huge red flag is the lack of a corresponding page on Swedish Wikipedia.Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment Lots and lots of references, but many of them don't mention SWEDHR. I don't want to not-vote until I've checked the article a bit more, but please don't be too impressed by the number of references. Sjö (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete After checking the sources. No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The sources are almost without exception trivial coverage, self-published, non-reliable or about something other than SWEDHR. The opinion piece in DN (Sweden Risks Being a Primary Target) is perhaps the best claim towards notability, but it's far from enough. Sjö (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Shorten As SWEDHR today has a proper website, it is enough with short information plus link to the website. - I had totally forgotten this organisation (consisting of only a very small group of people) as it is not visible in the society. It does not try to expand by getting more members, or making it's voice heard. It does not seem to cooperate with other HR organisations. So it does not need that much space on Wikipedia. (And yes, Ylleman, I am a Swedish doctor, still have my certificate although retired from clinical praxis. As editor in chief of the journal AllmänMedicin I have to keep updated on what's happening in the medical society.) Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete A search reveals that this organization is almost exclusively mentioned on known pro-Russian propaganda sites and blogs. A quick perusal of the topics on the organization's own website shows an exclusive focus on countering the mainstream narrative on issues important to the Russian government. This appears to be a disinformation site. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not really relevant to the deletion discussion, is it? We do have articles on organizations that are considered to be propaganda outlets. Sjö (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is apparently nonsense that "it appears to be a disinformation site", as all the claims in the article are backed by reliable sources, so if you have anything to back up your claim with respectable, verifiable sources, you may add it to the article, otherwise it is just your "mudslinging propaganda" about some "exclusive focus on countering the mainstream narrative on issues important to the Russian government"... probably because it counters the mainstream narrative on issues unpleasant to the U.S. government, as a quick perusal of the topics on the organization's own website reveals? :-D  It is perfectly legitimate to question and even counter the mainstream narrative (e.g. Amnesty International seems to do it more often than not). Antikapitalista (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact very few of the article's claims are backed by reliable sources (see below).Ylleman (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Dabiq and Al-Bayan are propaganda outlets of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. They totally deserve to have an article on Wikipedia, since they pass the WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Your argument doesn't sound legitimate per Wikipedia's policies. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) a penny for your thoughts? 15:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, it should be rewritten accordingly. As it stands, this page is the only thing giving the organization credibility. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep If the organisation does have scientific / medical credibility, the article mentioning them should certainly persist. They can't possibly be any less significant or less respectable than eg. SOHR. 92.0.184.157 (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean that an organization that is " frequently quoted by major Western news media, such as Voice of America, Reuters, BBC, CNN and National Public Radio" is less notable than one that has had one or two opinion pieces published? I don't think so. Sjö (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The medical cites speak to the notability of Marcello Ferrada de Noli, the founder, and not to the organization, which claims to work in the area of human rights and not medicine.Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   22:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep Seems to meet the requirements for notability though the article itself probably needs some work. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep It seems to be fairly notable... and in the light of the controversies exuding even from this page likely on a path to even greater notability. Given the fact that the article had been here for more than 2 years before someone suggested its deletion on the grounds of insufficient notability (and other reasons with which I will deal later), when it was apparently gaining more notability, seems like an insidious attempt at censorship. Regarding the other 2 reasons (verifiability, reliable sources), they are essentially part of a single issue... and, while there are some issues mentioned above the article... honestly, I do not understand them—they are not mentioned at all on the talk page, no further rationale for them is given in the description of the issues... and they seem to me like blown wildly out of proportions; in fact, some of them are even clearly misleading and false, such as that "the neutrality of the article is disputed", when it is not, as there is no such thing on its talk page. Indeed, about a half of the sources are primary [less than a half (and that includes the self-published ones) if the medical ones are not counted, more than a half if they are counted, but they are (mostly) really a primary source to the notes in the article referring to medical journals, which should be considered as proper secondary sources and the notes as references—but I have not reviewed the journals because I do not have them.] Still, the other half of the references is perfectly fine... and I have the impression that the article was written by a rigorous and diligent scholar who felt that every single statement needed to be backed by some reference. A greater diversity of the sources would definitely help the article, but it is certainly not fit for deletion. Antikapitalista (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A discussion on notability does not itself make the subject notable.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The fact that the article has not been discussed for two years does not support the notion that the subject is notable. The fact that there have been no meaningful changes since late 2015, on the other hand, suggests that the organization is either not very active or not very notable since any activities it might engage in fails to generate enough coverage to make people update its Wikipedia entry.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I presented my arguments at the beginning of the discussion. I think the article fails on notability because the organization has had no impact, and on verifiability because the sources either don't mention the organization or are links to the organization itself or to private blogs run by its members. I didn't initiate a discussion on the talk page simply because that's for improving an article's quality and I think there is no improving it, it should be deleted.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Your next argument concerns the issues flagged by Ceannlann gorm. That user argued for keeping but reworking the article, and in that spirit flagged multiple issues. That's not part of the deletion discussion per se; if the article survives, the issues should be addressed. But since I think it should be deleted, I won't go into that discussion.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You may well have the impression that the article was written by a rigurous and diligent scholar. I have the impression it was written by someone who was trying to make the article appear to meet Wikipedia's standards by padding the reference list.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The claim that the organization is "credited with reporting on the impact of war atrocities" is supported by two notes which in turn become references to the organization's web site, and to a Twitter post, respectively.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The claim that the chairman (not the organization!) "formally presented the candidacy of whitleblowers... to the Nobel Peace Prize" is supported by a newspaper article which only states that the professor wishes to do so.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The claim that board members "publicly demanded that the Swedish authorities provide a legal definition" of the case against Julian Assange is supported by a self-published PDF which does not mention the organization, and by an opinion piece in a newspaper which likewise does not mention the organization.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The claim that "SWEDHR has also advocated against allegedly human-rights breaches on Swedish cardiologist-surgeoon Fikru Maru" is supported by two articles on the Swedish public service radio's web site, neither of which mentions the organization.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The claim that "Swedish medical journal Dagens Medicin referred an open plea on the case sent by the organization" is false; the article on the Dagens Medicin site only states that the organization had issued a press release to the effect that an open letter had been sent.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The claim that the organization was mentioned in the Globe and Mail in connection with Valentina Lista is backed by the source.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The claim that the organization was mentioned "at Swedish medical journals" in connection with the Kunduz MSF hospital bombing is backed by the sources.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The organization "raised its concern about potential human rights catastrophes associated with the risk of nuclear conflicts" by publishing an opinion piece on NewsVoice, which meets the Wikipedia definition of a questionable source: "those with a poor reputation for checking the facts." The fact that the reference links to the comments section, not the article header, suggests to me that the editor is more interested in directing traffic to a web site than providing proper references to the article.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * From that we're left with three mentions in reputable sources. The mentions in (reputable newspaper) Dagens Nyheter listed in the "Debate and controversies" section are all opinion pieces, in which the authors may give themselves any title they wish. DN has itself never reported on the organization in a news article. All the other references are to the organization's own site or to various blogs.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Strong Keep After taking a look in Google news and some of the articles sources, I'm prewtty convincede that the article meets WP:NOTABILITY. It has received coverage after the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack and its respective annoncement. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) a penny for your thoughts? 15:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This argument seems to me to fail on WP:NOTNEWS grounds. Could you please be specific in exactly what coverage this organization has received in the wake of the attack? Ylleman (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Strong Keep The organization exists - on their page there are statemens of this organization published. Obviously their position is opposition to current political regime in Europe and an alternative opinion to the mainstream in the mass media. To support the diversity of opinions the information about this organization should be presented in Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.154.75.117 (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There are no "strong" votes. There are votes, and arguments -- some of which are weak. Existence is not sufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia, notability must be demonstrated. Ylleman (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete This is the FAKE organization owned by Russia Today — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.109.6.184 (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A whois lookup yields that the site is registered to the chairman through one of Sweden's regular web hosting companies. Please provide a source to back up your claim, and stop vandalizing the article.Ylleman (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In addition, this is the discussion on whether or not to delete the article. If you wish to comment on the contents outside of that discussion, please do so on the article's Talk page.Ylleman (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The arguments for deletion amount to : I DONT LIKE the organization nor the publications used as references. WPBut actually, the sources would otherwise be seen as sufficient, and we do follow NPOV, which does not necessarily  mean Our POV.   DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't quite follow your reasoning here. Could you please go through my list of claims above and note for each why what I argue is a non-reliable source is, in fact, a reliable one? Ylleman (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I, for one, am not arguing NPOV, I'm arguing notability. The neutrality flag was added after the article was proposed for deletion. For the record, I have no issue with the stated aims of this organization. I do have an issue with the article, since the organization has had zero impact in Sweden (or anywhere else), and thus cannot possibly meet the notability requirements for inclusion on the English-language Wikipedia. Ylleman (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2017 (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.