Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Global Campaign for Equal Nationality 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 delete. Opinions are split, but the "delete" side makes better arguments: they explain why they think the available sources are insufficient, whereas the "keep" side does not explain why they think the sources are sufficient.  Sandstein  12:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights

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

All the current sourcing is either primary or brief mentions. Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage, just more mentions. Fails WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Only "good" sources I'm seeing are WaPo and Reuters, which give it passing mention. I don't think that cuts it. NickCT (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I did find another academic source, in case that sways your thinking? ping NickCT  CT55555 (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I added two sources, one article from the guardian, talking about the launch of the campaign and referring directly to the campaign's website. The second is UNHCR article, talking about the campaign and the activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abs11a (talk • contribs) 14:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Let's see if we can get some input, or possibly a merger target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  03:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

*Keep I think everyone has missed academic writing about their work, which I had now added. They are mentioned a few times, I could have added more, but not very in depth. However, FEMINIST FORESIGHT IN STATELESSNESS: CENTURY-OLD CITIZENSHIP EQUALITY CAMPAIGNS does talk about the in depth. CT55555 (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Additional arguments that explicitly evaluate sources in light of a relevant notability guideline would be helpful in ascertaining a more clear consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The Guardian (which refers to the organization by its previous name of the "International Campaign to End Gender Discrimination in Nationality Laws") is a good source that probably provides the organization with significant coverage. But one source isn't enough, and the other sources cited aren't adequate: the WaPo is just a passing mention, and the UN agencies are too closely connected to the organization to be independent. There are quite a few mentions in Google Books and Google Scholar, but none of them seem to be substantial either. I thus don't think notability has been established, particularly since WP:NORG, which is deliberately stricter than the GNG, applies. A merger (as suggested in the relisting comment) would be a good idea, but I'm just not seeing a logical target. If we had an article along the lines of Gender discrimination in nationality law (likely a notable topic), a brief mention might be warranted, but unfortunately no such article exists. This is a fairly close call, and I'd be glad to reconsider if additional sourcing or a possible merger target can be identified. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I just added a source that I think everyone had missed, I wonder if that might change your view? Ping User:Extraordinary Writ CT55555 (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a stretch to call the Feminist Foresight in Statelessness article significant coverage of this organization in particular: it only mentions the GCENR a few times in passing while discussing broader historical issues. I've reviewed the scholarly literature again, and I'm still not quite seeing how the organization is sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article under WP:NORG (especially WP:ORGDEPTH). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I take your point. And I think I should revise my answer to "weak keep" because google scholar does bring up many hits, I think they are all passing mentions, but I spent enough time online there to establish that they are the only org that does what they do, and while I think it is indeed borderline, I'd still vote 51% yes here. But it's a tough one. CT55555 (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's certainly a fair conclusion as well. I agree that this is definitely a case where reasonable minds may differ. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Downgraded from keep after considering Extraordinary Writ's comments. CT55555 (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Please consider the comments on the talk page of this page by page created (and I assume new editor) User:Abs11a who clearly argues for keep " I respectfully don't understand how articles from the UN, Washington Post and others talking about the Campaign, the issue, and the activities of the Campaign are not primary sources. This is the only global gender-equal campaign on nationality rights, consisting of Global, regional and local organizations and even UN agencies, such as UNHCR, and the issue is being clearly discussed in all the sources. Again, very respectfully, I do not agree with you. Many thanks for your work anyway." CT55555 (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - of the additional sourcing provided, one (The Guardian) does not even mention the organization, and another (the UNHCR piece) is a press release.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This is one of those frustratingly borderline cases where editors' personal interpretations of significance can easily differ. On balance, however, I am satisfied that WP:NGO applies and that the coverage is significant enough for an international NGO. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 17:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment/Clarification/Keep I said "Keep" above, but in light of the relist comment, I will clarify it is informed by the General Notability Requirements plus WP:NGO CT55555 (talk) 06:38, 6 March 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.