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.
Delete: As of now (permalink), sources 1 to 5 are not independent and do not count towards notability. The rest of the sources cite reports by the organization, and some (like the one from apublica.org) go quite into depth into the reports, but still there does not seem to be in-depth coverage about the organization itself. It does not seem to meet WP:ORGCRIT, but the content of sources 6 to 10 would be due in various other articles. MarioGom (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to be honest I only found out about the previously deleted article when creating a redirect at GPAHE. I think the deletion in 2022 was adequate, but the organization's publications have since generated numerous news pieces including from CNN Portugal and Diário de Notícias, besides the above mentioned apublica.org. While these sources don't exclusively cover GPAHE itself, they do mention the organization extensively (at least one paragraph in each of those, and several in DN), they're entirely based on GPAHE's reports and cite them throughout. IMHO this is enough to attest significant coverage while clearly being independent, reliable and secondary. Rkieferbaum (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also recommended in the 2022 AfD. There has been no significant change in the quality of the sourcing that I can see. According to WP:NORG, The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements. I do not believe that the coverage of this organization rises to the level required by the relevant notability guideline, and I believe that Alsee analyzed the matter very thoroughly in 2022. Cullen328 (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: with all due respect, I think you're reading too much into that particular part of WP:NORG. Firstly, "well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements" - at least the three pieces I mentioned above, and many many others, do go well beyond brief mentions. They're not news pieces about something that were written independently of the organiation and then cite it in passing somewhere in the middle of the article. They're entire pieces built around the organization's reports and that give substantial coverage to the organization itself. The fact that this coverage isn't about the history of the organization isn't all there is to it. The pieces are about the organization's work and that cannot be ignored. A Pública's piece mentions GPAHE eight times throughout the text, as does Diário de Notícias. Surely that does not qualify as "brief mentions". Lastly, I call your attention to WP:NONPROFIT: the group must act nationally or internationally and, more importantly, "The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." I find that having their work featured in full pieces from outlets in Portugal, Brazil, the US, the UK and other places should be enough to cover both of those points. Mind you that none of the three articles I mentioned were published during the previous discussion: they're from jun/23, jan/24 and apr/24. Rkieferbaum (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rkieferbaum, we disagree about how WP:NORG should be interpreted. That's OK. I stand by my recommendation, but if consensus develops to keep the article, so be it. Cullen328 (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't !vote last time but I think it is a weak keep this time. There are 70 hits in Google Scholar and several pages of Google News hits showing that academics and Reliable Sources take them seriously and are happy to use their research as a source but I don't see anybody covering the organisation itself as a primary subject, which is what it would take to move it from a weak keep to a full strength keep. If anybody can find something like that, even if it is not in English, then I think that would secure the keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous references in reliable sources, including several from scientific publications available at Google Scholar. Direct and extensive coverage at some of the most well known Portuguese newspapers, like Público, DN, Sábado, etc. I don't have any doubts about its relevance.DarwinAhoy! 14:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I feel resonance with User:DanielRigal as there seem to be yet further articles that quote the organization. If increasing numbers of prominent publications mention the organization, then perhaps there is a point at which the subject should be considered sufficiently notable, perhaps. Some additional articles mentioning them that are not used in the article:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 04:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Cullen; the issues from the prior AfD persist. The fact that they were mentioned in a couple newspaper stories doesn't really seem to change this. If not deleted, then this article at a minimum needs to be stubified -- it is unbelievably promotional and reads like a press release. The organization's mission is to strengthen and educate a diverse global community committed to exposing and countering racism, bigotry, and hate, and associated violence; and to promote the human rights values that support flourishing, inclusive societies and democracies? Holy freaking Christmas, what a mess. jp×g🗯️ 01:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 17:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just semi'ed to stop the disruption. I'm the nom, but I don't see this as controversial. If you do, please feel free to request it reverted (or do it if you're an admin) StarMississippi 13:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at the Portuguese sources, the coverage is not really about the organization, but is more about a claim the organization has made. All the other references brought up appear to be passing mentions (including the academic references I clicked through on Google Scholar). I think if there were one or two more solid sources, this organization would have a good argument for notability, but right now it is not there. If it is determined there is no consensus to delete or keep the article, I agree with JPxG that this needs to either be stubified and/or sent to the draft space to deal with the promotional writing. If I came across this without a few of the sources, I would think this is a good candidate for speedy deletion via G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion). Malinaccier (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2024 (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.