Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pesticide Action Network

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 no consensus‎. Generally not a satisfying outcome after this much effort has been put toward a discussion, but there remains substantial disagreement over whether there is a sufficient quantity of reference material to sustain an article on this subject, and neither side conclusively refuted the other. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Pesticide Action Network

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Pesticide Action Network (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)

This fringe organization fails both the Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) as well as the Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline. Having a lot of Google hits is not going to turn the tide either. In fact, there are hardly no independent and reliable sources that actually describe the activities and achievements of this organisation. 62.183.185.10 (talk, c) 15:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC) — 62.183.185.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. Though I don't even recall creating this article, it seems like a real org and has been fleshed out a bit. Sure, it's fairly obscure, with not much recent action. This deletion request by a new/semi-naive ISP seems suspicious, too. Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

If it's a question of socks, I'm not aware of any banned users in the topic who would be apt to show up trying to delete this article, especially out of Finland. Most of those banned would be on the same side as this group's POV. It looks more like an IP that's been watching in the background and noticed the conversation I mentioned below about a possible nomination. KoA (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Just mentioning that those of us who edit the page recently discussed the potential for deletion at Talk:Pesticide_Action_Network#Notability where the idea of a nomination wasn't unreasonable at all with what we were dealing with at the time. I can work on formally summarizing things later. KoA (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  I guess by “Those of us who edit the page” you mean just you? I don’t think anyone else agreed. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  Gtoffoletto, I linked straight to the split off subsection that resulted after @Smartse first brought up the idea in the main section[1][2] KoA (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Obvious Keep would second @Dicklyon’s concerns. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NORG is the prevailing guideline here, not merely that an org exists. As discussed on the article talk page, independent sourcing is extremely sparse on in-depth coverage that would satisfy org notability, especially compared to other advocacy groups in this realm. In most cases, it's just a namedrop or passing mention rather than in-depth coverage focused on the group itself. That or maybe just being part of an indiscriminate database entry. If you do a google search excluding PAN websites, you get this, which largely just gives social media and other non-independent sources. You have to work pretty hard to even find sources that just namedrop the org. You will sometimes see this group mentioned internally within other advocacy groups about their denial of the scientific consensus on GMOs[3] or joining in on court cases/regulatory petitions, but that's about it. PAN doesn't get focus other than being a name listed sometimes, even in WP:PARITY sources in that realm. KoA (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  I forgot to mention that there could also be a WP:NFRINGE angle with this group, especially when it comes to GMOs. That said, I couldn't find any sufficient sources to really make the case for notability there either. You might find profiles in sources we don't even use in cases of WP:PARITY like the Genetic Literacy Project[4], but the more I look at this group, it appears to have even less independent coverage that that GLP link that lost its article status due to similar notability concerns. KoA (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  @KoA: This is a better link for excluding their websites using the site: parameter. SmartSE (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Delete I spent quite a while in June searching for sources but couldn't find anything that provides in-depth, independent coverage. I've looked again today and still not been able to find any suitable sources. Things that I have found are e.g. this_{(access this and the others via WP:TWL)} which is in-depth but published by the organisation so not independent. Other than that it is just many small mentions in reliable sources, mainly (presumably) originating from their press releases e.g. [5] or mentions the organisation in passing e.g. [6]. It is somewhat surprising that no better sources exist, but unless someone is able to come up with at least two sources providing in-depth, independent coverage, WP:ORG is not met. Neither Dicklyon or Gtoffoletto have addressed this. Who created the AFD is irrelevant (unless evading blocks). SmartSE (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  Remember PAN is a decentralised organisation. It does not exist as a central entity but as many local "chapters". Were you searching for sources referring to PANNA or PAN Europe etc.? I do not have time to do so now but will try later if I can. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  The name Pesticide Action Network would still show up in in-depth sources if the group was notable regardless of being de-centralized or not. That doesn't change the search terms, it just means you'd exclude each regional PAN website to focus on independent sources using the overarching name. KoA (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  I have used various search terms, but as KoA points out, if it is a decent source, it is almost certainly going to mention the term "pesticide action network" somewhere within it. SmartSE (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• Strong keep – Pesticide Action Network has been among the most influential and most active NGOs in the area of chemical safety and international chemicals/pesticide management. During more than a decade, it has e.g. contributed significantly to negotiations under SAICM and the Rotterdam Convention as well as to the Code of Conduct.^{[7][8][9][10]} Its European subsection (PAN Europe) is an accredited stakeholder to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).^[11][12] PAN Europe even currently holds the seat on the EFSA Stakeholder Bureau representing "NGOs and Advocacy Groups".^[13] CropLife International, PAN’s long-term opponent from industry side, lists the Pesticide Action Network in the same breath as the World Bank, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the African Union and WWF.^[14] --Leyo 20:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Leyo: I've looked through all of these links and still none provide any in-depth independent coverage. All they do is demonstrate that it exists. If it is as important as you claim then it should have attracted much more coverage. SmartSE (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  The available information is more than sufficient to conclude on PAN’s influential activities in many processes within the area of chemical safety and international chemicals/pesticide management. I haven’t checked if what you claim would be available for other NGOs or CropLife International. --Leyo 05:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe so, but that's not what WP:ORG requires, I stress again that we need in-depth coverage not trivial mentions. Let's not get started on WP:OTHERCRAP. SmartSE (talk) 10:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Both criteria in WP:NGO are clearly met, as shown above. Your unsubstantiated claim of the opposite is your opinion …

  I’m aware of WP:OTHERCRAP, but we should be careful not to introduce a systematic bias. --Leyo 16:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NGO requires The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. (my emphasis). Let's examine the sources that you added in detail to see what they say about it:

1. [15] Shortly after the Code of Conduct was first issued, the International Organization of Consumers Unions (IOCU) and the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) developed a Citizens’ Action Guide to the Code of Conduct (Goldenman and Rengam 1987). PAN also published a consolidated guide to the chemical tools and conventions (Goldenman and Pozo Vera 2008) which provided a checklist for implementation of the Code of Conduct. A dedicated Code monitoring module has been developed to help concerned organisations to monitor compliance with the Code of Conduct by governments and industry (Pesticide Action Network Asia and Pacific and Pesticide Action Network UK 2016). In addition, PAN carries out projects that promote implementation of parts of the Code of Conduct, in particular on alternatives to more hazardous pesticides. Member organizations of the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) conducted community monitoring in 13 countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America between 2007 and 2009 (PAN 2010). They assessed pesticide use practices, use of personal protective equipment and self-reported symptoms of pesticide poisoning. Based on this survey, their assessment was that 25 years after initial publication of the Code of Conduct, pesticides in these regions were still exposing farmers to significant health risks. The best source of all of them, but the text is about reports that they have published rather than the organisation itself and is two small paragraphs in a 60 page document which is itself only chapter 3 of 12 of a larger report.
2. [16] Noting high turnover, Pesticide Action Network (PAN) called for the appointment of experts who can complete their terms. and then several mentions of them supporting various decisions. Clearly not significant coverage.
3. [17] Not even anything to quote, just their name in a list. Not significant coverage.
4. [18] Known to cause a high incidence of severe or irreversible adverse effects on human health or the environment (Pesticide Action Network, 2009). That's it - not significant coverage.
5. [19] As for #2 - just their name in a long list.
6. [20] The same again.
7. [21] and again.

Overall, there is only one source which gets anywhere near to being what we need for WP:NGO to be met. SmartSE (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for having a look at most sources I provided. Except number 1, the references are not thought to show classical coverage, but as examples of PAN's significant influence and recognized notability.

BTW: PAN also provides the database pesticideinfo.org that have been financially supported by e.g. the United States Agency for International Development. In an assessment of toxicological databases, PAN Pesticides Database met the inclusion criteria and ranked in the midfield of the evaluated 21 databases. Arizona Department of Agriculture states: This environmental group maintains a pesticide database that presents current toxicity and regulatory information. Notable features: sources for information (including EPA) completely transparent; site is very easy to navigate. --Leyo 22:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment on the two users who voted for deletion of this article: Smartse states on their user page “This editor is an exclusionist.” KoA has removed valid content from this article in edit warring mode.^{e.g. [22][23]} --Leyo 21:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Leyo: And the relevance of this to this discussion is what? SmartSE (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  … is obvious. Deletion of the entire article is just the continuation of the previous deletions of valid content. --Leyo 05:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  This discussion is about whether the organisation is notable or not, not about the philosophies of editors nor a review of editor's contributions. I don't think you can have read meta:exclusionism either and so draw your attention to They would only delete an article if they felt their omissions would leave nothing substantial. SmartSE (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Note: Leyo has been page-blocked from this AfD page as a WP:AE action. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep per Dicklyon and the detailed judgement and analysis of Leyo. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Randy Kryn: Please see my analysis of the sources Leyo provided above. Neither Dickylon or Leyo have presented sufficient sourcing to satisfy WP:ORG so your !vote is not going to carry much weight unless you can expand further. SmartSE (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:NORG. These two sources should meet SIRS requirements.
  1. Yearbook of International Cooperation on Environment and Development [24]
  2. The Pesticide Encyclopedia [25].

In case we are absent consensus to keep, we also have an excellent WP:ATD with a redirect to Environmental justice § Transnational movement networks. —siroχo 08:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Delete. I've looked at the sourcing on the page, and the sources recommended in this discussion, and it seems to me that there is insufficient independent sourcing to establish notability. On the page, most of the current sources are non-independent, while two are not. An article from Time, [26], never mentions PAN by name, simply referring to a group of organizations of which, apparently, PAN is one. There is an article from The Washington Post, [27], that doesn't mention it in the online preview, but the article appears to be about a Food Alert program that, likewise, was founded by a group of organizations of which PAN is only one. There are a variety of books that have been mentioned, each containing entries (encyclopedia style) about PAN, but a close look indicates that these are all books published by environmental groups or as proceedings of environmental group meetings. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Different groups that work on similar topics can still be independent of each other. That would also be the case for e.g. trade associations or research groups of different universities. --Leyo 20:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Understood, but in this case these are advocacy groups advocating for the same thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Also e.g. trade groups or other industry associations are often advocating for the same thing. --Leyo 04:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  In which case it would be similarly appropriate to evaluate whether or not they are really independent. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• I lean delete, and have considered nominating before. I removed enormous numbers of primary-sourced references to them from articles over the years and don’t ever recall anyone providing a secondary source that would have established the significance of any statement. It’s a pressure group beloved of the more militant anti-sciences off-wiki, but sourcing that actually establishes any objective significance is hard to discern. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is not really a surprising statement bearing in mind that JzG’s only contribution to this article was deletion of content. --Leyo 04:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I often remove poorly-sourced and tendentious content. Especially self-sourced puffery. You have a problem with that? Guy (help! - typo?) 15:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  By "poorly sourced and tendentious" are you referring to removing basic content on the structure of the organisation sourced to the Union of International Associations's profile on PAN as you did in your latest edits? That seems pretty tendentious to me.

  Of note: the Union of International Associations operates under UN mandate as an independent research institute with the goal of documenting the work of current and historical international associations. It "collects, hosts and provides up-to-date, reliable information on global civil society and maintains the most comprehensive source of information on international associations"[28] and have profiles on all of the local chapters of PAN (full data only accessible with paid subscription).

  • Pesticide Action Network (PAN) - UIA
  • E-XM7320 - Pesticide Action Network Europe
  • E-XM7491 - Red de Acción en Plaguicidas y sus Alternativas de América Latina (RAP-AL)
  • E-XM7197 - Pesticide Action Network Africa (PAN Africa)
  • E-XM7500 - PAN Asia and the Pacific (PANAP)

  This alone proves that PAN meets WP:NORG. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• (from AE) Keep, meets WP:GNG based on encyclopedia entries, e.g. Toxic Chemicals in America (pp. 495-496), Sittig's Handbook of Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals (p. 1015), Resisting Global Toxics: Transnational Movements for Environmental Justice (pp. 77-78 and elsewhere throughout the book), plus the two sources pointed out above by siroχo, Yearbook of International Cooperation on Environment and Development 2002-03 (p. 304) and The Pesticide Encyclopedia (CAB International, pp. 345-346). These are all entries in academic encyclopedias (except CABI, which is an NGO not an academic publisher) that, in my view, are in depth enough to meet GNG, as well as being independent, and written by reliable sources. One other example I'll raise is a chapter ("Drift Catchers Combatting Pesticide Power," pp. 63-72) in Bite Back: People Taking On Corporate Food and Winning (U. Cal. Press, 2020), which is written by PAN personnel about a PAN project. That it was written by PAN personnel I suppose makes it non-independent for GNG purposes, but frankly, the fact that PAN was invited (by independent editors) to submit a chapter about one of its success stories for this book also demonstrates PAN's notability, as does the fact that PAN's work is widely cited by reliable sources and has been for decades (based on Google Scholar and Google Books searching). Levivich (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Delete. Smartse's source review is compelling. The bottom line is that there appears to be no significant coverage of this org in sources (or at least no editor has demonstrated that), and that is really the end of the matter. Bon courage (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Bon courage: Why aren't you counting the five sources I linked as SIGCOV of the org? Levivich (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Because so far as I could see none are independent sources with significant coverage. You know, some analysis and synthesis WP:SECONDARY-like. Or did I miss something? Bon courage (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Ok let's just take my first link. Why is the first one I linked not independent? What connection is there between the author/publisher and PAN? Why doesn't it have sigcov? It's two pages long. A two page entry about PAN in an academic encyclopedia isn't long enough to be significant? Levivich (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  It passes the independent text but so far as I can see (Google Books UK clips the start of the entry) this is just a directory-like entry. But perhaps you're looking at something different to me because what I'm looking at is not "two pages long"? Is there some analysis and synthesis in the bit I'm missing? Bon courage (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  A "directory-like entry" in Toxic Chemicals in America? That book is not a directory, just look at the other entries... are any of them directory-like entries? That book is a two-volume specialist encyclopedia published by ABC-Clio in 2021, and it has an encyclopedia entry about Pesticide Action Network. You can see "Pesticide Action Network" listed on the list of entries at the top of page vi. The entry on PAN begins at the top of page 495 and runs to the middle of page 496. It is 6 paragraphs, 522 words of prose. Not a directory entry at all -- there is no contact information for PAN, no phone or address, no infobox with statistics, just a prose summary of the group. 500 words isn't very long, but it is normal length for an encyclopedia entry, and I'd think an academic encyclopedia would count as a WP:GNG source for each and every topic that it has an entry about. Levivich (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  I looked at each of the five sources you cited. What's clear to me is that all of them are encyclopedia-like tertiary sources, but on specialized topics, and in each case, there is an entry, in the manner of an encyclopedia entry, about this page subject. I'm seeing descriptions of PAN, but not much analysis. So when I think about that in terms of GNG, I have to evaluate where this sourcing fits in WP:SIGCOV. It's maybe a little more than trivial, but it's less than in-depth. And I wonder why there is so much tertiary sourcing in the apparent absence of secondary sources. That's actually pretty unusual. A lot of the other entries in those sources also have lots of independent coverage in secondary sources. WP:RSPRIMARY says that pages "should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources"; this page fails that test. And WP:TERTIARY says that tertiary sources are most useful to "help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." In that context, the absence of secondary sources looks even more suspect. And it also says: "Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others. Within any given tertiary source, some entries may be more reliable than others." Here, it seems to me that we have to be cautious about treating these entries as really establishing notability. Normally, notable advocacy organizations get attention in secondary sources for what they have done. Yet, per my earlier comment here, the secondary sources that have been cited, in Time and the Washington Post, don't even mention PAN by name. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  This doesn't make any sense to me. It seems like just moving the goal posts.

  @Levivich do you have access to the full text of Toxic Chemicals in America? It would be nice to add it to the page which definitely needs additional sources. Thanks {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Not moving any goalposts, just citing policies as they are written. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Smartse's source review did not cover all sources provided (see also comment above). --Leyo 23:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I've reviewed the page and found that PAN is credited with having influenced/participated in the processes that led to Rotterdam Convention and Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Substantial coverage exists on those topics and I've added some content and sourcing to the article that I invite participants to review, but I recommend using tools such as the Wikipedia library [29] as most of this activity is from the 90s. Levivich if you have an easy access to the books that you mentioned I can try to source some additional content. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Once again, this is content that indicates that there were multiple organizations involved, of which PAN was only one, and not a prominent one, and editors are trying to make PAN's involvement appear more prominent than what the sources actually support. I checked each of those sources, and not one of them is actually focused on PAN's role. They just cover events in which PAN happened to be one of the participants. Certainly, PAN is involved in significant activities, but is portrayed by secondary sources as an insignificant player in those activities. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Passing mentions as an also-ran, in fact. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Here is a quote from one of the sources (that I had still open on my PC): The term “prior informed consent” appears to have been coined by David Bull of Oxfam (UK) in the late 1970s to convey a trade norm specifically in the context of trade in hazardous pesticides.15 Bull’s work at Oxfam influenced the Pesticides Action Network (PAN), which lobbied international institutions to regulate pesticides. PAN was motivated both to address serious environmental and health consequences of current pesticide practices and to curb what it saw as irresponsible behavior by multinational corporations (Paarlberg 1994: 316–319). Thus, the moral, legal, and economic origins of prior informed consent came together in pesticides trade. from "Informed Consent: A Negotiated Formula for Trade in Risky Organisms and Chemicals" by Amanda Wolf. Is this nothing more than a passing mention in your view? Is PAN not prominent here? Did they "just happen to be one of the participants"? For context the concept of Prior informed is central to the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent. To me the answer is no to all of those questions, but we might have different sensibilities here. Let's hear from others. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Whether it's a passing mention or not (I think it is), the focus of that passage is David Bull's coining of the term "prior informed consent" which he did "in the context of trade in hazardous pesticides". PAN is mentioned as having been an example of who was influenced by that. It's not a passage about PAN, but a passage about a broader concept that uses PAN as an example. The Rotterdam Convention is notable, but PAN isn't. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed, I looked into this one when it was added to the article earlier, but hadn't gotten around to removing it (also moot if the page is deleted). It's just another passing mention instance that wouldn't really be DUE at the article much less higher-level notability. KoA (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  You keep saying that you reviewed all the sources in the article but I find that hard to believe or you wouldn't misinterpret this text in such a way. It clearly states that it was Pesticides Action Network (PAN), which lobbied international institutions to regulate pesticides. And I quote the abstract (passing mention?) of another source: The establishment of PIC as a binding international rule was sealed by eventually gaining the support of the chemical industry in the early 1990s, after initial opposition, after a civil society campaign led by the Pesticide Action Network (PAN), an alliance of nongovernmental organizations.[30] Have you included this source in your review? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment after relisting. I actually took a look at all the sources mentioned here so far (including paywalled ones), but they all strengthen that the organization fails WP:NORG by lacking in-depth coverage. Instead, many sources have been provided that happen to basically just namedrop PAN, are part of indiscriminate directory-like listings, etc. This is the exact issue I mentioned in my initial delete comment.

Others have alluded to it, but when the evidence brought by those wanting to keep the article only further demonstrate the delete rationale, we're going to keep running into problems with the article WP:PAG-wise if it remains. Articles that don't meet notability requirements, but are instead stitched together with one-off comments in sources or a large number of passing mention sources functionally are a WP:COATRACK in the sense that passing mentions obscure the lack of notability and WP:SIGCOV. I've also seen comments here that run up against WP:INHERITORG. The group's associations with others doesn't lead to inherited notability. Deletion has just become more clear as editors actually walk through sources that contain the PAN term, and we do have to be mindful of just how much WP:NORG currently weighs against keeping the article from a WP:!VOTE perspective. KoA (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Since you claim you took a look at all the sources mentioned here so far (including paywalled ones): can you provide us with the relevant portions of text from this one [31] that mentions PAN in the abstract? Also from Toxic Chemicals in America that contains a full entry on PAN. I've been reviewing all of the sources myself and have come to a very different conclusion than yours but I do not have access to all the full texts. Thanks. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

You may want to ask those who cited the source first. For the first, the "chapter" is only a single page (barely that) which basically says nothing more than the abstract on PAN in a single sentence. When you look at other sources, you don't see them using this language about PAN or even singling any particular ones out, so there is a WP:DUE issue with that description. For the second source, it should already be a red flag that it's not indexed in most databases. I had to hop over to a nearby library that luckily had a copy, and it doesn't look like that book is stocked widespread either. It's mostly just citing them a few times, which is why it probably popped in the google search. As Bon Courage mentioned, it's just a WP:DIRECTORY-like entry, and Tryptofish already had a good description of the 5 sources mentioned in that main comment.

It should be pretty telling that we've gone through this many sources (some just thrown out there because they just briefly mention PAN), and still haven't found a source really getting to in-depth coverage like we would for other notable environmental advocacy groups. We can verify that they do stuff, but that's not the same as notability. KoA (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow, was somebody touting a sourcing as proving GNG's bar had been cleared, without actually having accessed that source? Find that hard to believe. Bon courage (talk) 04:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think that's something the closer is going to have to sort through, was notability just asserted with sources that didn't really do that, or are there sources that truly showed depth focusing on the org itself. That's a repeated problem that was brought up early on in this AfD as a core issue that it would be helpful for the closer to address regardless of what the decision actually is. KoA (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Toxic Chemicals is not a directory, it's an encyclopedia. Levivich (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

So basically you can't provide additional quotes from those sources to prove your point? A lot of hoops to jump to disqualify all of those sources. Now we are at the stage of "not indexed in most databases" to discard encyclopedic sources? And not all sources use exactly the same "language about PAN" so it doesn't count? Pretty weak reasoning. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Delete Fails NORG: a near dearth of independent RS. Serial 18:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
• Keep Here's a notably non-sympatheic appraisal of PAN. A Google search reveals 100s of hits from newspapers across the world going back to the 1980s reporting on PAN. Some common sense necessary here; by all means clean up the article, but this is a high-profile 40 year old globally-recognised non-profit network (with significant visibility outside the Anglo-sphere). FWIW, in this case, if the forensic application of our policies and guidelines do not produce a better encyclopedia, we WP:IAR. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  The first link was already addressed from the Genetic Literacy Project as generally not reliable (we even avoid it as a WP:PARITY source in this subject). The problems of just throwing up Google searches and saying there are a bunch of hits has also been addressed to as not addressing the key parts of WP:NORG. KoA (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  As I said *forensic* application of policy and guidelines misses the forest for the trees. The GLP source might well be corporate sponsored, but the question of whether PAN presents fringe theory is as asserted in this discussion is not backed by multiple, independent reliable sources. Moreover, I made a specific, not generic, search link to newspaper appearances of PAN - literally hundreds across 40 years. Despite the claimed difficulty with finding these sources, it's common sense that an organisation whose reports, lawsuits and lobbying activities receive newspaper coverage over decades in nunmerous countries is notable. Given the organisation's origins in Malaysia in the early 1980s there's more than reasonable likelihood for significant offline sources to also be available. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  We're looking for significant coverage. Is there any? Invoking a "likelihood for significant offline sources" doesn't cut it. Bon courage (talk) 06:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment recognition of international prominence of PAN; not presenting fringe theories, discussion on international activities, overview of PAN as international social movement.

References

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: Thank you for the sources #1 is trivial coverage, #2 looks to be the same but I can't find the full text - do you have it? #3 I also can't access to assess. #4 is finally the kind of source that we need, the author appears to be independent and it contains several pages of content specifically about PAN. If anyone else would like to read the full text, drop me an email. SmartSE (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Great work @Goldsztajn and thanks to @Smartse for giving me access to source #4. Very in depth and important for this article. Will work to add it as soon as possible. Chapter 11 is titled "Environmental Health Organizing In A Globalizing World: The Emergence Of A Global Anti-Toxics Movement And Its Political, Legal And Economic Challenges" and states in the abstract: Particular attention is paid to the evolution of the international organization Pesticide Action Network and the constellation of other organizations in its orbit.. It has everything we need from PAN's origins to the main campaigns with great detail. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That's getting better as I look through 4, though a still remaining challenge is this is only one book chapter from an author in San Francisco where PAN is based in North America. There haven't been other sources giving much detail, and that's a recurrent problem I'm seeing in the pesticide related literature. Other groups do get some mention, but PAN is typically only mentioned in the background at best lumped together which a bunch of other acronyms. That coupled with all this work to get one source that mentions more than a sentence is still a pretty serious question of notability from WP:NGO The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. (my bolds) after surveying this many sources. KoA (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking into the source (4) more, I see that Nova Science Publishers is generally regarded as a vanity press Nova_Science_Publishers#Criticism. I would be really wary of this especially being the sole source used to claim notability or impact and all the more reason to follow the NGO guideline's guidance on multiple in-depth sources. KoA (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this is enough to get over the line. Shame so much editorial integrity had to be torched to get here. Amending !vote. Bon courage (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I took a look at 3 (Groth 2014). It's basically no different than previous directory-like entries. It only gets three sentences. The context in that the source is what NGOs lobby/participate with the WHO/FAO Codex Commission meetings. They make a bulleted list of those orgs, but PAN doesn't get any mention in summary statements of major organizations like the others. It just gets: PAN is an international alliance of environmental, farm-worker, and consumer advocacy organizations that promotes pesticide safety in a variety of contexts. PAN has been actively involved with the FAO’s Agriculture Committee and with the United Nations Environment Program. Pesticide residues in foods are one of PAN’s many concerns, and PAN has attended occasional past sessions of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues.

The lens for this source is really just involvement in Codex, so it doesn't look like it'd be a great source for overall notability assessment. An org like Greenpeace basically gets a similar passing mention that they don't really participate much, while others that did participate more have much lengthier profiles, so we don't really have a good stand-alone WP:ORGDEPTH source or comparatively when the source is taken in context as to who the major players on the list are. It verifies PAN participates a bit in a run of the mill fashion, but it seems like we're still running into the issue that this an org often in the background, not not really getting a lot of notice from multiple sources. KoA (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Origins of PAN in US, reporting on PAN directory, example of PAN activities, reporting of PAN Europe complaint to European Ombudsman on EU pesticide approval process, PAN role in launching lobbying group in Philippines.

References

Satisfies the WP:GNG and WP:NONPROFIT. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Most of those are medical claims coming from newspapers and wouldn't be reliable sources for that material. The first is also in a small town newspaper as well as the second. The third and fourth are from larger regional newspapers, but still have MEDRS issues for relatively short articles. They might be ok simply for sourcing basic verifiable org information in an article, but not notability (a important distinction for those not familiar with AfD's vs. due weight article inclusions). The sixth is another passing mention at best just barely namedropping PAN and has some WP:FRINGE fear-mongering. The fifth is a little different in that it's more of a WP:PRIMARY blow-by-blow description of a case PAN brought to the European Commission (and an uncited report), but the focus is more on the case, not PAN.

Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Significant_coverage_of_the_company_itself highlights the overarching problem here. Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. These articles are highlighting a product, case, or a report at best, not PAN itself.

We've had a recurring problem at this AfD of assertions of notability with, yet actually digging into the sources shows the opposite. If the organization truly was notable, all someone would have to do is follow WP:NGO and provide multiple sources that provide in-depth coverage for the closer to close this as keep. So far we've only had one source that meets that criteria only if you ignore reliability issues. When that criteria isn't met though, we're looking at a clear delete when you look at the volume of sources topic editors have been "asked" to sort through that don't show in-depth coverage. KoA (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this response conflates a critical reaction to PAN with a critical assessment of sources about PAN. The first two citations are wire pieces, Associated Press and the New York Times, respectively, that is, they are national news stories, not local (leaving aside that there is no community consensus that discounts local news coverage per se). How are the second and thrird MERDS issues? The question is not about the content of the directory, it is that the directory exists and that there is reliable sorucing reporting on the existence of the directory. The fourth and sixth illustrates, as has amply been shown, that PAN reports, activities receive widespread coverage. The fifth citation indicates that it is a notable case; there are literally millions of court administrative review processes which do not receieve reporting. PRIMARY would be the judgement of the court ombudsman, this is secondary. Finally, PAN is *not* a company, you cannot conflate a for profit corporation with a not for profit, non-government organisation - our guidelines distinguish profit and for-profit organisations precisely because of the ways in which for profit corporations have resources above and beyond non-profits to game sourcing. Where is the sourcing that supports the claims that PAN engages in fringe theory? I've no problem with those being included in the article, but there's a lot of assertions here about PAN, but I've seen no sourcing (other than the piece I mentioned above, which was discounted) to support those particular assertions vis à vis PAN. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2023 (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.