Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Level Military Group

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. Enigma^msg 21:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

High Level Military Group[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Fails WP:GNG.~~ Jamez42 (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the HLMG shows up a lot in various sources, including multiple reliable ones. Usually the organisation itself just gets a line or two (it's usually about their report) but sometimes they get significantly more. ~~I need to review the various sources to decide whether I want to put any of them forward as meeting SIGCOV~~ - given that this organisation would be bound by WP:NORG not merely GNG, the sourcing requirements will be tough. The article (if it can be viewed as such) is not merely extremely lacking it's missing a rather key consideration of HLMG's viewed bias by many. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources given below by Avisnacks are the ones that I also found but was unsure about also including since I was (and indeed am) debating whether the presumed preference of various Israeli newspapers to talk independently about the HLMG might prevent them from being suitable sources. We probably wouldn't rule out the bbc as a source on pro-uk groups, so I was unsure. However with the addition of the National Review source which gives both plenty of detail and is presented in a more neutral fashion, along with the telegraph source, plus the potential additional of the other sources, I am confident enough to say that WP:NORG is satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A political pressure group masquarading as something semi-official. They have no real notability themselves. Their material may have been used by notable politicians but WP:NOTINHERITED. SpinningSpark 09:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The policy requires that an "organization ... is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:ORG). It has acquired significant coverage in the newspapers below (all independent of the subject). While the HLMG has an explicit mandate that may very well bias their findings, I will note that political pressure groups are not ipso facto insignificant. Regarding independence, Wikipedia stresses that "independence does not imply even-handedness" (WP:IS).
- Significant coverage of HLMG:
- jewish press
- times of israel
- Jerusalem Post
- Telegraph
- National Review Avisnacks

(talk) 10:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll strikedown my comment because this is significant coverage, thanks for finding it. The article clearly needs to be expanded, I'll see if I can help with that later. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't do it for me. The articles are essentially regurgitated press releases of the organisation. We wouldn't accept such material as counting towards notability for a company so I don't see why we should accept it here. The articles are about the reports produced by this group. There is no real information there about the group themselves. SpinningSpark 13:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions and / or self-promotion. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage listed at this AfD is not significant; here for example is a report that the group issued to promote itself: HLMG Report: Hezbollah the Most Powerful Non-State Armed Force. Etc. It's typical PR-driven coverage; does not meet WP:ORGIND. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NORG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NORG, no significant coverage yet. Snowycats (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.