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 keep‎. Consensus has tended towards an agreement that improvements have proven a standalone article can exist in an acceptable state. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Not Numbers (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:GNG, the references are not independent or reliable, they use own website as ref and youtube links, another wikipedia articles or unknown books , even the HuffPost article is a guest post by someone who belong to them, the article is WP:MASK. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 20:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have serious doubts that a WP:BEFORE check was performed before this AfD nomination was made. This internationally sponsored program has been running since 2005 and has dozens of mentions on Google Scholar. Bad nom. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

first: the project started in 2015 not 2005, second: please don't make it personal or dispraise the discussion and please focus on the main points.--Ibrahim.ID ✪ 22:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have rechecked the new sources added; refs (2 - 4 - 5 - 6) written by persons belong to The project and #11 from "Euro-Med Monitor" which the parent organization. so all this refs aren't independent, the publications are completely against WP:VERIFY because we can't access or read it, the Google Scholar search the result is too few (not dozens of mentions as Iskandar323 said) also the results don't give us real or verifiable results and maybe it are Trivial mentions, I really wonder; if this project is known or notable since 2015, why there is no independent or reliable sources about it? I found only 2 results in google search in Arabic and it's old news from 2015. that is mean article's subject is WP:BLP1E and this is another reason to delete it. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 22:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That it has scholarly mentions at all is significant; plenty of subjects (least of all organizations) do not even garner a whisper in academia - to do so requires a degree of notability. WP:BLP1E is a BLP guideline and not applicable here. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect, independent SIGCOV meeting the requirements of NCORP has not been found. Sources from people affiliated with the org obviously do not count as independent. JoelleJay (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, see Google Scholar - there are around a dozen scholarly mentions. Regardless of the significance of coverage in each individual instance, that is a significant depth of coverage and penetration into secondary academic literature. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per user JoelleJay. JunitaWorker (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Deletion discussions should be based on what information is out there, not just what is present on page. Even so, already on page, there are articles featured in Spectator Magazine, +972 magazine and Wafa, as well as scholarly articles with mentions in further reading (of at least a dozen scholarly mentions). The scholarly mentions alone are ample indication of WP:GNG, and we already have good example of independent, secondary coverage. I've now also added the links to Nonviolence International and Mondoweiss coverage that were already present and available on the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor page - all in all there's a good amount of sourcing present. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The Spectator source is a letter to the editor and contains only a passing mention, it's SPS and trivial N. The second +972 article is an interview about We Beyond the Fence, it doesn't have SIGCOV of WANN N. Nonviolence International is a partner with WANN N. The second Mondoweiss piece has 2 sentences introducing WANN, then the rest is repeating what WANN/its writers say, so is not independent N. I couldn't find a Wafa link. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a Haaretz article which is devoted to it. Zero^talk 06:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look, there are a dozen mentions in books and academic papers. That is quite unusual and for obvious reasons: this is a notable literacy programme that has been covered in secondary sources on literacy programmes. I can't access most of the books and papers, because they are behind paywall, but I'm guessing neither can you. Perhaps you should reserve judgment until someone turns up who can actually access those sources. Even if you dispute the notability, surely a redirect would be appropriate?Iskandar323 (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Haaretz article gives me a 403. I can access most academic sources. If you have any in particular you would like me to look at let me know. And sure, a redirect would be fine. JoelleJay (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: The Haaretz article link definitely works for me. It's behind paywall, but you can typically open it the first time around on any given IP, and I think you can do the same trick again with Chrome Incognito mode. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: Regarding checking out the academic sources, I would prioritize any of the three sources in the further reading. Google scholar suggests they have substantive passages on the subject. There's incidentally also a book mention now that I've added (in addition to the German work). Iskandar323 (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The requirement for sufficient coverage in published secondary sources is comfortably met. The OP's claim "the publications are completely against WP:VERIFY because we can't access or read it" indicates lack of understanding of policy. Zero^talk 11:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There's also this dissertation containing a 5-page chapter and more mentions of WANN. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure dissertations can count towards notability. They are typically not peer-reviewed and are generally primary. Has the author published about them in academic journals? JoelleJay (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoelleJay: WP:SCHOLARSHIP says they can be used with caution. In this case, it is quite niche topic, so one shouldn't expect the stars. PhD dissertation coverage is significantly better than what a lot of organizations get. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources that must be used with caution are generally not considered adequate for counting toward notability. Many non-profits get coverage in academic sources, appearing in scholarship is not at all unusual in human rights fields especially. JoelleJay (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Or Merge any salvageable content, less clearly several biased news reports, to Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. Clear Propaganda, biassed, and missing any neutrality. See comments below. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a misunderstanding of policy. Neutral means with respect to sources. To assert that this material is biased or non-neutral, you need to provide the reliable sources that contrast/are at variance with the sources already present. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A major problem I have, lacking any ostensible reason, is the article versus sources appear to be political smoke and mirrors. The article is titled: We Are Not Numbers, apparently about an organization doing supposedly good things, providing a vehicle allowing Palestinian youth to write "articles, poems, and personal essays about life in Gaza". A goal supposedly is to get "writers to focus on the everyday lives of people rather than the narratives of war and conflict". A not-so-subtle point can be found in the sources. "Where Is Justice For the Children Who Drowned in the Mediterranean", "To try to save his neighbors, he had to demolish his own house", "The Jabaliya Massacre: Heaven Embraces Five Angels", "Living among the dead in Gaza", written by a young Palestinian man that says "he aspires to become “a voice for Palestine", and published in +972 Magazine. Read a little further towards the bottom, We are in an unprecedented and dangerous era in Israel-Palestine. The Israeli extreme right government has made its plans crystal clear. It wants carte blanche to shoot-to-kill Palestinians. Another source, "Deported: Israel's war against Palestine solidarity activists". How about "Israel bans right activist from entering Gaza", written by Pam Bailey, co-founder of the organization? Bailey is the international secretary of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor and director of We Are Not Number. The Human Rights Monitor article, which has coverage on this organization, states they have "workshops to train students on several techniques to modify Wikipedia articles in both Arabic and English". Another source "Palestinians in Gaza are bringing their stories of siege to Israelis".

If Wikipedia is still operating under the auspice of neutrality, one of the five fundamental principles, care should be taken to ensure organizations are not high-jacking certain areas. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: You seem to have an issue with the stories that are mere example of content being featured in outlets. None of those sources were used to support factual statements about the organization, and I almost removed them before: the confusion here has provided the impetus to do so. Please can you re-assess the page based solely on the actually supporting sources used. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JunitaWorker, @JoelleJay, @Ibrahim.ID: Please can you all check out the latest version. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323 My issue is two-fold. #1)- The items listed as references or sources, as you stated, "None of those sources were used to support factual statements about the organization". 2)- That is not only an issue with notability it is an issue I see as subversive literature. NPOV becomes a serious issue when an article is not balanced. This article should be about the organization not a tool for advancement of any cause of Pam Bailey or the Human Rights Monitor. I am not sure what is meant by "stories that are mere example of content being featured in outlets". I looked at one of the "sources" still in the article (Katz, Y) and see mention of a WhatsApp group and Border Gone. I can't tie the three together so the source has no importance to the article that I can see. I struggle with the thought that new writers are schooled on how to manipulate (modify) Wikipedia. I can see some of the content of this article being covered in Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor (as it is) but no evidence it deserves a stand-alone article. This is why I suggest a merge as an ATD. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: I'm sorry, but if you cannot see the references to the subject in Katz, that simply means you are just skimming the abstract but haven't actually clicked on the link to the dissertation itself. There are five pages on the subject there. On the subject of balance, you keep making claims about this, but you have not actually produced any sources countering statements on the page to suggest that there are balance issues. Balance issues aren't something that you can simply suppose: you need to demonstrate them. The stories I mentioned were the news outlets that hosted We Are Not Numbers content. You complained about those links, so I obligingly removed them here. It would be polite if you could acknowledge this and the that this particular issue which you raised has been resolved. If you can't acknowledge the resolution of issues raised, you are not acting very collegiately. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep GNG met, here's another feature. https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2017/4/20/writers-aim-to-challenge-stereotypes-about-gaza Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A great deal of work has gone into improving this article since its nomination and I encourage editors who examined it when it was first nominated to give it another look. I think some additional work could be done to improve the tone so that it is more NPOV but I think there is enough sources now to retain it on the project. I think we have to consider this writing project apolitically, would we keep it if the young writers were Ukrainian or from the Sudan or from another area of conflict? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the later proposed sources, and the article in its current state, would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Enough SIGCOV has been found. As said above, whether the sources are biased or not immediately accessible is not a notability issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY and per Liz's comment. Cavarrone 09:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I agree some improvements have been made. I thought about changing to "Weak keep", however, Iskandar323, an Admin has echoed my concerns about NPOV mentioning the tone of the article so apparently I am not as far off as you seem to think. NPOV is one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles that includes Advocacy, and that is what I see. It would not matter if "the young writers were Ukrainian or from the Sudan or from another area of conflict". I don't have a pony in the race. I rarely edit any contentious topics and when I do it is usually minor edits.

The subject is a split from Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, so has coverage on Wikipedia, and I do not see the justification for a stand-alone article, especially just to be apolitical, since it is less neutral than the parent article with questionable sources. Some of the advocacy can be seen in the sourcing. The Middle East Eye source states, "Deported: Israel's war against Palestine solidarity activists". The author, Pam Bailey, is the person claiming to have been banned. Another: "Israel bans right activist from entering Gaza". These are sources that may be acceptable in the parent article but what is the need for being in an article about an organization and young writers?

I consider that the Katz "Thesis" is just that and does not advance notability. The Mondoweiss source is a blog. The article would likely be considered among the Contentious topics. I changed the link to Ben Norton (who does not have an article) to reflect the redirect to "The Grayzone" which is considered a "far-left news website and blog". At any rate, it does indicate what type of "training" young writers are getting direction from when they are schooled on how to modify Wikipedia. I may end up in the minority but I guess that is alright now and again. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV has nothing to do with notability. If you think it is POV, and have sources that prove it by contradicting the information already on the page, you should balance the material by adding those sources. What you should be considering here is the best anchoring sources, not the insufficiencies that you find in just a few of them. There is now a book source, a full length Haaretz article, a PhD dissertation, a +972 magazine article and an Aljazeera article. That's a pretty broad range of coverage without even getting on to the scholarly mentions, which only haven't been expounded because I lack access. NB: Incidentally, while it's irrelevant, this article was in no way split from Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor; it was actually created before it, in 2016, while the latter was only created in 2019. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:36, 18 June 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.