Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian Helsinki Committee

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Sandstein 12:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian Helsinki Committee[edit]

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

Albanian Helsinki Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG, this heavily promotional article is sourced to a press release and its own website, and a search in both English and Albanian brought up nothing more than promotional blurbs and social media. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GOOGLEHITS, we need actual sources for an indication of notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The organization has been mention in the following reputable sources: Euronews, Albanian Telegraphic Agency, Voice of America, US Embassy in Albania, largest media network in Albania Top Channel, Ministry of Internal Affairs, largest news portal in Kosovo Telegrafi, etc. Kj1595 (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A press release, a dead link, a press release, literally just a statement by the organisation reprinted in full, and an article consisting entirely of quotes from a press release. Still nothing that would contribute to a WP:GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is decent coverage in Albanian media we should keep it. Rathfelder (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is. The committee is a widely known human rights organization in the country dating back to the early 1990s. Kj1595 (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Human Rights Watch has called this "the country's most prominent human rights organization". People should at least look in the right places, such as the searches found by clicking on "books" and "scholar" above, before giving an opinion at AfD. Why do so many people insist on doing a web search? If you only look for unreliable sources then you will only find unreliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did look in those places, and I am still not swayed. I would consider the HRW publication a primary source as it’s a self published document by HRW without independent editorial review. Activist organizations aren’t exactly known for maintaining a neutral distance from the topics they are advocating for, the way say a journalist reporting to en editorial board or researcher reporting to an IRB would. I would not count that as RS for GNG purposes. Further the HRW has been criticized for poor research methodologies, poor fact checking, and publishing unreliable information. See cited criticism in Human Rights Watch#criticism. 4meter4 (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote there is no evidence of independent significant coverage. What do you mean by that? Are you trying to say only independent organizations are allowed to have articles here? I provided highly reputable sources such as Euronews and the US Embassy in Albania publishing news articles about the committee. 80,000 search results are not significant enough to you? Kj1595 (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kj1595 please read our policies at WP:SIGCOV and WP:Verifiability where those terms are more clearly explained. It’s clear you do not understand the concept of an independent source and what that looks like, nor are you understanding our policy regarding proving notability. The sources you provided above all had issues that do not comply with SIGCOV for multiple reasons as explained to you already by Devonian Wombat (who was spot on in his analysis). Further hits in a search count is explicitly labeled as a bad AFD argument per WP:GOOGLEHITS. That kind of argument holds no weight at AFD. What we need are independent reliable secondary sources. This means sources with no connection whatsoever to Albanian Helsinki Committee, and sources which have editorial oversight and are not self published. Even then some sources still lack independence, such as press releases and interviews, which are still too closely connected to the subject to be considered independent. So no press releases, no interviews, and no self published sources. Sources also need to be secondary to be counted toward SIGCOV. Documents from the Us Embassy in Albania or an NGO like Human Rights Watch are WP:primary sources, so they also do not count towards notability.4meter4 (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have a rather strange and selective way of deciding what constitutes as an independent source by so casually dismissing a prestigious organization such as the Human Rights Watch.
The activities of the Albanian Helsinki Committee have been published by the National Library of Albania. The committee is mentioned in the Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2007, published by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
The Encyclopedia on Human Rights by Edward H. Lawson published in 1996, describes the Albanian Helsinki Committee as an "undoubtedly notable achievement".
Scholar and founder of the Institute of Political Studies, Afrim Krasniqi, has written about the organization in his book Civil Society in Albania. Kj1595 (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The policies are what they are. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments aren't helpful. And you still are putting forward materials that do not prove notability. The encyclopedia entry on Albania is a secondary source, but the AHC is only covered in one sentence of that lengthy article. This does not constitute "significant coverage" as required by WP:SIGCOV. The County Report is another WP:Primary Source. Again, primary sources can not be used to establish notability. The inclusion of the Albanian Helsinki Committee documents in the National Library of Albania is certainly an achievement, but it does not provide any evidence of independent coverage of the organization as required by our notability guideline.4meter4 (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You agree that the National Library of Albania is a reputable source but don't consider it independent enough? Based on what? Can you expound on that argument some more and not throw empty words like "required by our notability guidelines". Kj1595 (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said no such thing. You linked to a catalogue of holdings in the Nationsl Library of Albania, which include listings of documents held in the collection of the library. These are not documents published by the library itself; but holdings in the library. The materials related to the Albanian Helsinki Committee in this list are self published primary sources. They are not secondary publications published by the the National Library itself. These are primary sources and not independent ones.4meter4 (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, you cannot refute Human Rights Watch as a credible source. That in itself gives a standing leg to the argument that this article should be as is. In all fairness, how can you argue for this article to be deleted while similar articles of the Helsinki Committees of Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Norway, The Netherlands, etc.. be allowed? Kj1595 (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. The Human Rights Watch publication is another self published primary source; which has already been pointed out to you. It has no editorial oversight, and should be treated the same way we treat other primary sources. For notability purposes we require WP:Secondary sources; largely because of our core policy of WP:No original research. Wikipedia articles which rely primarily on primary sources are considered to be original research, and we routinely delete those as a matter of policy. What would be helpful would be an article written by an independent journalist from a publication with an editorial board, or a peer reviewed journal article, or a book published by a reliable academic publisher that provides expert editorial review prior to publication. Those are the kinds of secondary sources we need to prove notability; not primary sources. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You did not answer my question. Are you or Devonian Wombat going to nominate the other committee articles for deletion? As an example, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee article has literally one single reference from a random website. Kj1595 (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That argument has no weight at AFD. Please read Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We evaluate each topic individually in relation to our notability policies. Those other committees may or may not meet our notability requirements. Whether they do or not has no relationship to this particular AFD.4meter4 (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are being selectively bias which automatically disqualifies your opinion in this discussion. The third and fifth examples in Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS literally validate my point. Kj1595 (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:CIVIL. Resorting to personal attacks doesn’t help your argument. I have no agenda here other then applying Wikipedia’s policies as written. As an AFD patroller I participate regularly in AFDs and I approach every article with the same process. What you are experiencing here is a normal review of sourcing as required by our policies. You obviously misunderstood the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS policy which gives examples of "arguments to avoid at AFD". The notability or lack of notability of other committees has no bearing on the notability of this committee. 4meter4 (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment throwing around WP shortcuts is not actually discussion. The important point, as far as I can tell, is that there is an assertion that non-English sources exist which show the notability of the subject. Instead of getting fixated with the small number of English sources, how about showing us some of the non-English sources? I'm open to being persuaded, but simply making assertions and repeating the same points isn't helping. JMWt (talk) 05:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake some of the links above are non-English. Personally I don't think they're enough for reasons others have said - however it might be true that suitable sources do exist beyond the brief mentions already cited. I don't have the skills to find them in Albanian, but I'm relatively confident that someone else can. We just need some sources that satisfy the RS and the GNG. JMWt (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have found some more sources. The US State Department cites the Helsinki Committee in this report on Human Rights in Albania as does the UK government in this report. This book titled 'Modern Albania' says that they are the 'main human rights group' in Albania. This academic journal paper says that the group is a "national source of information for the treatment of migrants entering the country illegally" JMWt (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion: it's an organisation which is well-known in Albania, described by book authors as the 'main human rights group' in the country, funded by the EU, cited by the US and UK governments as reliable sources of information. It regularly features in press reports and in NGO reports in the region.
It's clearly notable as shown by the numerous ways it has been noted. It is highly likely that much more extensive non-English sources exist.
A clear Keep JMWt (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @JMWt please see my source analysis below. We still only have one piece of evidence toward meeting WP:SIGCOV. We need multiple pieces of evidence to pass GNG.4meter4 (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
Afrim Krasniqi (2004). Shoqëria civile në Shqipëri. Governor's Emergency Education Relief Fund. Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN WP:PRIMARY source as a government publication. Only mentioned briefly in one sentence. Fails WP:SIGCOV as a primary source.
Edward Lawson (ed.). "Albania". Encyclopedia of Human Rights. Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Organization is only mentioned in one sentence; making it not "in-depth"; but that one sentence is a strong claim of importance. Overall fails WP:SIGCOV for not being indepeth.
"Migrants Who Enter/Stay Irregularly in Albania". Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies. December 2016. Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY This is a good secondary source, and while the AHC is not the main subject, there is some good commentary on the organization. Passes WP:SIGCOV.
Fred C. Abrahams (2016). Modern Albania: From Dictatorship to Democracy in Europe. Green tickY Red XN Question? Red XN Red XN The content related to the AHC is all written in the first person, with the author's own experiences with the AHC at the front. As such the work is too closely connected to the subject to be considered independent RS. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR. "2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Albania".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN Government report; fails WP:SIGCOV as a primary source
House, Committee on Foreign Affairs. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2007, Report. Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN US Senate report with passing mention; fails Fails WP:SIGCOV as a primary source
Human Rights Watch. ALBANIA Democracy Derailed Violations in the May 26, 1996 Albanian Elections. Green tickY Question? Question? Red XN Red XN HRW publications are considered primary sources by the Princeton University Library on Human Rights; not a secondary source; also criticisms abound over HRW research and publication practices. Fails WP:SIGCOV as a primary source.
"Komiteti Shqiptar i Helsinkit: Vdekja e të riut në stacionin e policisë së Kavajës mund të parandalohej". Telegrafi. Green tickY Red XN Red XN Question? Red XN No by-lined author. An interview which lacks independence. Possibly some press release material as well. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Ministria E Brendshme. Çuçi sqaron pse mungon anëtari i Komitetit Shqiptar të Helsinkit në Komisionin Kombëtar për Azilin: Për më shumë se 3 muaj nuk dhanë asnjë përgjigje, megjithatë mund të marrin pjesë në çdo mbledhje. Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN Government report; fails WP:SIGCOV as a primary source
Komiteti shqiptar i Helsinkit: Ngjarja tragjike në Komisariatin e Kavajës mund të parandalohej. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) Green tickY Red XN Question? Red XN Red XN Reprint of a press release written by the subject; lacks independence; fails WP:SIGCOV
"Komiteti Shqiptar i Helsinkit në mbrojtje të mjedisit: Të verifikohen ankesat e qytetarëve". Euro News. Green tickY Red XN Question? Red XN Red XN Press release written by the subject; lacks independence; fails WP:SIGCOV
"Komiteti Shqiptar i Helsinkit, sugjerime për ndryshimet në ligjin për Mbrojtjen nga Diskriminimi". Albanian Telegraphic Agency. Green tickY Red XN Question? Red XN Red XN Published by the government news agency, consists almost entirely of quoted text; as an interview lacks independence; fails WP:SIGCOV
"Komiteti shqiptar i Helsinkit kërkon fjalën e drejtësisë për çështjen e Himarës". Voice of America. Red XN Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Interview with AHC about an incidident; not really about the AHC but about an event; as an interview lacks independence; fails WP:SIGCOV
U.S. Embassy in Albania. "Fjalimi i Ambasadores Yuri Kim në Aktivitetin e Prezantimit të Raportit të Monitorimit të KLP dhe KLGJ nga Komiteti Shqiptar I Helsinkit". Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN Government report; Fails WP:SIGCOV as a primary source
Total qualifying sources 1
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
Nice table, however I don't agree that reports written by (for example) the US and/or UK governments are primary sources for the purposes of establishing notability. Indeed, the two reports I've offered above are reports published by the US and UK governments that discuss the human rights situation in Albania and directly cite the subject organisation as a source of reliable information about the topic. That's by definition a WP:SECONDARY source in my opinion. I accept it might not be completely independent, however the purpose of this exercise is to establish whether there is sufficient notability, and I have shown above that the subject organisation is noted by the UK and US governments to the extent that they are being cited as reliable sources of information.
I don't know what else to tell you. There are media, government, international governmental, academic and NGO reports that note this organisation, and that's just what I can see in English. It's clearly enough. JMWt (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt I disagree. The reason why we require multiple secondary sources of information is because of our policy of WP:No original research. Government and NGO documents are not always reliable as they sometimes include content that is not independently verified. For example, some of these reports/documents contain first hand testimony in government meetings that have not been independently fact checked for accuracy. The reason why we require secondary sources is because of fact checking and editorial review which establish WP:Verifiability. We honestly need some more secondary sources, or we are building an article that violates WP:OR.4meter4 (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are setting an impossible standard. We are simply looking for sources to show notability. We have them from multiple directions. It might not satisfy you, but it is enough for almost all wikipedia pages. JMWt (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This is the standard per our written policies. One or two more journal articles, or an in-depth news story by an independent named journalist that isn't primarily an interview would push this over into the keep side. Honestly, it shouldn't be that difficult to find two independent secondary sources with significant coverage if a topic is truly notable.4meter4 (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I find links confirming they exist, mostly in the Balkan Insight newspaper/web magazine, nothing we can use to base an article on. Oaktree b (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete source analysis clearly proves WP:ORG is not met. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Albanian_Helsinki_Committee&oldid=1216076134"