Talk:Protection International
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Article in development, this NGO works in more than 20 countries, helping civil actors having their rights fulfilled and protected. Reading the wikipedia requirements, i need to gather enough external sources in the next days to gain wiki legitimacy.Quentinnoirfalisse (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Notability issues[edit]
This article remained tagged as a "New article' until March 2011. The following is a discussion copied over from User talk:Kudpung:
Hi, Kudpung, sorry to bother you. I'm just working through some of the historic unreviewed article backlogs and have come across this article. I get the feeling it's been copied and pasted from a source. A google search revels many other sites with the the same text, but they all cite Wikipedia as a source. Even if it is not a copyright violation then it does seem very 'adverty'. I'm not sure if is blatant enough for CSD though, would you mind taking a look? Pol430 talk to me 11:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Scratch the adverty bit Pol430 talk to me 11:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Protection international (with a small 'i') was once tagged for CSD and speedy deleted because the creator had blanked the page. It was a very short one-line stub by the same creator. There are a lot of sites that mirror Wikipedia content. If those sites with this text clearly attribute it to Wikipedia, that may be alright, but you'll have to check up on our rules about this. It may even be a translation of a French text from somewhere, such as for example http://www.lamediatheque.be/loc/part_protection_international.php?reset=1&secured= but this would be harder to prove without knowing some of the sentences in the original. I agree, even though you struck it, that the page does sound spammy - no organisations whether commercial or not are allowed to promote themselves through Wikipedia. You'll need to check the creator and see if you consider there to be a WP:COI. A quick random look at the refs show me that they may be what I call 'scraping the barrel for notability'. Many of the refs seem to be used by the article to justify Protection International's raison d'être, but such refs do not assert notability. The user name Quentinnoirfalisse is a unique coined word but it shows up a couple of times in Google. A Quentin Falisse has a page on a social networking site at http://fr.netlog.com/Quentin0u/shouts, also Belgian, and also a black (noir) coloured site - this may just be conincidences even though the name is again not common.
- Ref #17 is an entirely personal blog written by a Clette Braekmaref http://blog.lesoir.be/colette-braeckman/2009/06/24/affaire-maheshe-une-parodie-de-justice-a-bukavu/ on WordPress sofware hosted by lesoir.be, a Belgian news website owned by Rossel & Cie. S.A. - if lesoir is a mainstream newspaper, then the blog may be subject to the newspaper's editorial controls, but it doesn't look like it. Rossel & Cie. S.A. seems to be a a holding company for a group of news medias including print.
- Ref #6 is a Belgian parliamentary bill about NGO's, but is not specifically about Protection International
- Ref #7 Is a German parliamentary bill concerning the protection of NGOs; It mentions nothing specific about Protection International.
- Ref #8 Is a Spanish parliamentary bill concerning the protection of NGOs; It mentions nothing specific about Protection International, and the cited page numbers don't gel.
- Ref #9 Is a Spanish parliamentary bill but according to Firefox it is a risky website.
- Ref #11 http://www.reliefweb.int/ocha_ol/pub/idp_gp/idp.html is another United Nations paper on which Protection Interbational bases it philosophy
- Protection international (with a small 'i') was once tagged for CSD and speedy deleted because the creator had blanked the page. It was a very short one-line stub by the same creator. There are a lot of sites that mirror Wikipedia content. If those sites with this text clearly attribute it to Wikipedia, that may be alright, but you'll have to check up on our rules about this. It may even be a translation of a French text from somewhere, such as for example http://www.lamediatheque.be/loc/part_protection_international.php?reset=1&secured= but this would be harder to prove without knowing some of the sentences in the original. I agree, even though you struck it, that the page does sound spammy - no organisations whether commercial or not are allowed to promote themselves through Wikipedia. You'll need to check the creator and see if you consider there to be a WP:COI. A quick random look at the refs show me that they may be what I call 'scraping the barrel for notability'. Many of the refs seem to be used by the article to justify Protection International's raison d'être, but such refs do not assert notability. The user name Quentinnoirfalisse is a unique coined word but it shows up a couple of times in Google. A Quentin Falisse has a page on a social networking site at http://fr.netlog.com/Quentin0u/shouts, also Belgian, and also a black (noir) coloured site - this may just be conincidences even though the name is again not common.
- Nevertheless, this NGO seems to be important and may well be notable - it appears to have the support of the EU. The remaining refs need to be checked to see if they are WP:RS third party articles about Protection Internationale. Articles like this are often written in good faith, but spam is spam. If you have time, do some more research and let me know how you get on - we might both learn something. --Kudpung (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)