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.
Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV. Effectively copy and paste job from org website. No indication of being notable. scope_creepTalk 11:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep A WP:BEFORE search of Google Scholar would have yielded 357 results. Google news has over 500 results (of varying quality).
This is an OECD project, with at least 54 national members, and is described in detail in books and scholarly articles. Admittedly, the article was in some need of updating, and I've added some scholarly articles but haven't gotten to possible news articles. Substantive multi-year treatment in scholarly literature should easily demonstrate notability.
Unclear what "effectively copy and paste" means - if there is a WP:COPYVIO issue it needs to be resolved ASAP; I'll be happy to have a look if you want to provide details. Oblivy (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The number of of google search results doesn't indicate notabilty. We will look at the references, which look to be WP:PRIMARY. I know these types of org tend to have primary coverage but they're needs to be more. scope_creepTalk 13:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Routine coverage doesn't confer notability even for an international coalition. Google searches aren't relevant significant coverage. Delete. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment The article cites numerous pieces from law reviews and other journals, written by independent experts, including:
this book on privacy[[1], co-edited by an author of several books on privacy, which devotes four paragraphs to describing GPEN. Other sections of the book mention it as well;
this article[2] (available free in pre-print here[3]) co-written by Colin Bennett, a professor at University of Victoria and author of a textbook on privacy published by Cornell University Press, which describes its founding as an "important step" towards global privacy regulation;
another article[4] written by Prof. Bennett which is entirely devoted to GPEN;
this law review article[5] which devotes approximately 3.5 pages to discussing GPEN.
These are easily (1) significant, (2) independent, (3) reliable, (4) secondary coverage. That is enough to satisfy WP:SIRS.
But there is also mass distribution news coverage. Globe and Mail devoted a few sentences in an article to its privacy sweep results, and the Guardian mentioned it as well. These are not newspaper editorials from privacy commissioners; these are articles written by independent journalists who recognized GPEN's work as notable.
Finally, none of this relies on Google search results. I only mentioned Google searches because they are required by WP:BEFORE, and because it was evident the AfD proposer didn't do such searches before proposing the article for deletion. Oblivy (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are minor routine coverage one might expect from an international coalition, it doesn't make it a notable organisation. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect some policy-based explanation beyond a conclusory statement that this is "minor routine coverage". According to WP:ORGCRIT what is required is "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I have provided several WP:SIRS citations, including several by distinguished professors in the field of information privacy. Can you please confirm you have read the articles before adding this comment?
Comment We will look at the references some point today. For example that last reference doesn't prove organisation is notable. scope_creepTalk 14:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been substantially revised since it was originally listed. It now includes citations from a book on privacy, a law review note from an accredited law school's journal devoting no less than 3.5 pages just to this organization, and multiple articles by experts in the field of information privacy. It is an OECD-sponsored multinational NGO with 59 member countries plus other members. The original listing of this article may have been done in good faith, considering the relative lack of secondary sources at the time. However, subsequent comments from User:scope_creep and [[User:User:Macktheknifeau have been conclusory and not policy-based. The original proposer User:scope_creep has twice promised to read the new sources but time has passed and they remain silent. This is not a good candidate for deletion.Oblivy (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I say I'm going to examine the references, then I will look at references everytime, for future reference. Lets have a look at the first two blocks.
Ref 1 [6] This is written by the group for the group and is WP:PRIMARY. It is a WP:SPS source, failing WP:ORGIND.
Ref 2 [7] This is malformed reference and its impossible to determine what page numbers are being looked at.
Ref 4 [9] "Interoperability of privacy and data protection frameworks" This paper has a citation count according to Google Scholar of exactly 1. It has been cited another paper which itself is not cited.It is part of the global drive for digital privacy and as far as I can see its not linked to GPEN in any manner. It has a profile on GPEN and states it was the most popular option for privacy advocates. Its terrible reference, such a low cited paper. It another mission paper and is WP:PRIMARY.
Ref 10 [15] This has a slighter higher citation count of 32. This has an analysis of Gpen, potentially a decent source, but the information copied from GPEN documents.
Ref 11 [16] Guardian article but it a single stat as passing mention.
Out of the 11 references, 3 fail WP:SIRS, 1 is a press-release, 1 is a passing mention, 4 fail WP:ORGIND, 1 is a dodgy reference, 1 has what looks like an analysis but is taken from primary sources. Not a single one of these pass WP:SIRS. Lets look at the references contained in the Afd.
Ref 1 [17] Behind a paywall for this very book at £159 for a hard copy. No page numbers.
Ref 2 [18] Mentions the GPEN as a OECD transnational instrument as privacy framework. Passing mention at best. Has the source and mentions it. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 3 [19] It is the Bennet paper above with 1 citation. It is not a good reference to prove its notable. Fails WP:SIRS.
None of the papers presented in this article have the sufficiently high citations to qualify as valid secondary sources. Everything here indicates at best that its an international coaltion but nothing proves its actually notable. The references are very poor indicating its a type organisation thats nascent. If there was three sources per WP:THREE then it might have had a chance. scope_creepTalk 11:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Springer book is available for free in PDF form: [21]. I'll save you the effort and point out it has 22 citations. You can look at pages 38-39, and it's mentioned elsewhere in the book, but based on the above I expect you'll reject that as well. Cheers. Oblivy (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've made your point and it's now time to stop commenting on every edit made, as it will rapidly start to appear like attempting to WP:BLUDGEON the AFD with spammy comments and pings. I've made my comment and stand by it and feel that scope_creep has proven without a shadow of a doubt this organisation is non-notable with coverage that is irrelevant, insignificant, non-independent or is routine.Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Would benefit from input from editors other than scope creep and Oblivy. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does anybody else have comments on this? scope_creepTalk 19:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As there are no other comments, and we're coming up on another 7 days, I'd ask that this be closed as either keep (my vote) or no consensus. The article has been much improved and expanded, and whatever legitimate complaints Scope Creep may have had have long-since been addressed. There is no citation-count requirement in WP:GNG_source_criteria. If you want WP:THREE:
Apart from the first entry, these are same references that have been comprehensively reviewed and rejected above. That first paper "Children’s digital playgrounds as data assemblages: Problematics of privacy, personalization, and promotional culture" is another low-cited paper. Can you stop commenting and trying to WP:BLUDGEON the Afd. scope_creepTalk 10:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was just providing a concise summary. I'm comfortable with my conduct in this discussion. Oblivy (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not nor is the other editor. If you make another comment, I'm going to take you up to WP:ANI. scope_creepTalk 15:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does anybody else have comments on this? scope_creepTalk 15:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Input from other editors is still needed… Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 09:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing notability, plenty of mentions, but the sources just aren't extensive. Source explanation shows most (if not all) are either trivial mentions or primary.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: As above. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SeraphimbladeTalk to me 14:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion notability has been established with sources provided by Oblivy. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have done exactly 24 Afd's. Not only that you offer no evidence on why the article is notable, which means the closing admin to likely to ignore your !vote. It's almost as though you have been here before, even though you have only been here for four weeks. This is the second time you've offered an evidence free !vote and its starting to bother me a bit. Your behaviour is suspicious. scope_creepTalk 18:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up that this reads like a personal attack (specifically, accusing another editor of suspicious behavior and implying they may be lying about their history on Wikipedia). Your above comment threatening another editor with an ANI report if they make further comments on this AfD reads similarly. I recommend taking a breath here; there's no need for personal attacks. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits) 22:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its really curious how you've turned up barely any edits this year, nor spent any time at Afd, to support an editor whose been WP:BLUDGEON right through this Afd, plus supporting an editor who had done 24 Afd's and turned up a hour later after the previous delete !vote, when the article has been untouched for about two weeks. When folk turn up like this, from past experience of editing pattern, I think of socks working as a gang. scope_creepTalk 23:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have made exactly 101 edits in 2023. What made you come to this Afd, out of the dozens of Afd that are on the go at the moment? scope_creepTalk 23:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, you need to stop assuming everyone is involved in some weird conspiracy against you, it's not WP:CIVIL and it's not cool. What does the number of edits I've made in 2023 have to do with anything I said above? I'm a sporadic editor because of real life commitments and shifting focuses. There is no universe in which that prohibits me from participating in the project. I'm on this page the normal way people wind up in AfD discussions; I was scrolling through recent listings and this was relisted today. You might notice I also participated in several other AfDs that were listed or relisted today.
I'm not even clear what you're accusing me of. I didn't weigh in on the deletion discussion here yet (I started looking into it, but I tend to do extensive research before putting in a !vote, and I haven't had time to do my own review of all the sources thrown around yet). I simply noticed you were being harsh to other editors, and thought maybe a gentle nudge from someone who wasn't already involved in the discussion might help serve as a reality check.
You also might wanna take a closer read of WP:BLUDGEON when you get a chance, especially the section titled Everyone gets to participate in discussions. People get passionate about their arguments and comment back and forth; tensions rise even over silly things (you know, like whether or not we should have an article for this minor NGO). I don't think back and forth responding to each others points quite rises to badgering—it's kinda normal AfD tension—but I can see why it would get interpreted that way. At the same time, I definitely see someone here telling people they aren't allowed to participate. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits) 00:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an NGO that doesn't seem to have merited any significant independent news coverage. I've reviewed all the sources listed here and the vast majority of them are academic papers or textbooks citing research done by the organization in question. I don't believe citations and references to an organization's research are particularly useful for establishing the notability of organizations; they might be useful for establishing the prevalence of a scientific term or field of research, but I don't think an organization's research being cited indicates notability of that org any more than it would for an individual researcher. I have no doubt that GPEN exists and is doing legitimate and valuable research within its field. At the same time, a notable organization would presumably have merited some significant coverage in newspapers or web news sources, and none seems to exist here. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits) 01:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments @Dylnuge but I’m puzzled at the idea that an organisation which receives ongoing mentions in the academic press[22] and has been the subject of detailed scholarly coverage (per WP:THREE above) is somehow not qualified by notability because it doesn’t get popular press mentions. The bar seems to be set impossibly high here, especially in comparison to other topics of mainly academic interest.
In fact, there are popular press mentions, some of which are in the article (e.g., Guardian, Daily Mail, and two I just added yesterday from Hong Kong Free Press and The Register; the Register article is quite lengthy). In fact, I created this article a number of years ago because it was mentioned in the press and Wikipedia drew a blank. There is also website coverage, esp. discussion among privacy lawyers. Mentions generated by the privacy commissioners themselves are not wholly independent, and because of the way this AfD discussion has gone, I’ve tried to keep things as WP:RS as possible (noting there’s no absolute bar on primary sources, except for notability).
I also appreciate your comments about civility. As you note above I’m apparently asking for trouble by commenting, although I’m sure we’re all relieved talk of sockpuppet gangs seems have dissipated. At this point, I don't care. It may be I’m too close to this article, but I feel deleting it would fail to make Wikipedia better, and would almost certainly make it (perhaps slightly) poorer. Oblivy (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you're mixing up verifiability and notability. The reliability of these sources is not the primary thing being questioned. What's in question is whether this is something that belongs in an encyclopedia. GPEN is an organization, meaning the WP:NCORP guidelines on applying WP:GNG are useful here. Notability works the same regardless of whether it's of mainly academic interest; we need coverage to be significant (in depth coverage and not just passing mentions) and independent (not the organization's own press releases or publications). The myriad sources I've reviewed—including ones I found in my own investigation of this topic—seem to exclusively consist of citations and passing mentions. I do not believe that bar is met.
WP:THREE is an essay suggesting that you pick your three best indicators of notability to help other editors quickly review and establish notability. It explicitly advises against throwing more and more sources at people (and curtly; it says "I'm not willing to slog through dozens of sources to evaluate them"). Saying something holds per WP:THREE doesn't make sense (it's an essay, not a policy) and you seem to be flouting the advice in the same sentence (i.e. you provided a link to a Google search, which strikes me as the exact opposite of curation).
Regarding the civility stuff, yeah, things here have gotten heated. I regret my second reply to @Scope creep above; had I taken a 30 minute break between writing and posting it, I would not have posted it. It adds nothing to this discussion on the value of including this article, and it's needlessly defensive. I'm sorry. If anyone feels the need for further discussion there, my talk page is open and feels like a more appropriate venue. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits) 05:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dylnuge My basic stance is "when in doubt include", but I can see why people would disagree. But one of your arguments puzzles me a bit. You write: "I don't think an organization's research being cited indicates notability of that org any more than it would for an individual researcher". But isn't that exactly one of the major factors in the case of researchers? WP:Notability (Academics) says: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." Of course that need not translate to organisations and there's still the question of whether the threshold is reached and whether or not citations in non-scholarly publications count in the first place. So it may not make a difference in your evaluation of this particular article. I just wanted to point out that it may be relevant in other cases. And I agree that people should not rely too much on WP:THREE. It's more a statement about how people make decisions, not about how people should make decisions. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to that criteria; my phrasing may have been a bit unclear. There can be leeway on what constitutes "highly cited academic work" but I don't think the provided work would make an individual researcher notable, so I can't see how it'd make an entire organization notable on its own. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits) 19:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can see that. Your phrasing threw me a bit off because it sounded like you wouldn't take citation into account at all. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed by Dylnuge. CastJared (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: the user above has been commenting on a large number of AfDs in rapid succession with empty or "per X" !votes. The comment above is one of 6 they left in the same minute and one of 22 they left in the same five-minute window and is unlikely to be indicative of consensus. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits) 19:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The delete vote was striked because of sockpuppetry. CastJared (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and ORG. If someone finds three sources post them and I'll look. To be clear, Three sources are all that is needed here, three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, ping me.[23] // Timothy :: talk 05:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if you're serious but seeing as how the discussion has gotten a bit murky above (for which I take some, certainly not all, responsibility), these are good:
Delete Being mentioned as part of other work isn't SIGCOV. I can only find one source that isn't just a passing mention. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The best WP:THREE sources listed above don't meet the WP:ORGDEPTH thresholds. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:44, 6 May 2023 (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.