Talk:Society for Latin American Studies

Primary sources are not forbidden at Wikipedia. All information in this stub is in the SLAS web-page, which is perfectly appropariate. Do you want to contribute to the encylopedia? Go out, find other soureces for other information and add it, but do not just strew unnecessary tamplates around will-nilly as if this helps anyone. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OWN Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I really do not see how OWN applies when I welcome other people adding more information to the article. Hav I stopped anyone from adding information to the article? Please stop projecting. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 02:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Notability is not established by a link to any organization's own website or publication. Surely you will agree that there are non-notable organizations with as many members as this one. The assertions of notability are certainly enough to ward off speedy deletion, but if it is so important, it should be possible for someone in favor of having this article to find independent reliable sources documenting the notability, as TimVickers did. The organization's own website is a good source for detailed and up-to-date information, but the tag was placed appropriately given the lack of independent references. Edison (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure to whom you are commenting. I am still not convinced that the tag was appropriate - you seem instead to think the notability tag would have been more appropriate. To be clear: I for one never claimed that notability is established by a link to an organization's website. I created a stub. If you are asking me personally if in my judgment the organization is notable, I would answer yes and ask that you WP:AGF. If you are asking me if I think it would be a good idea to add reliable secondary sources to this article I would answer yes, and ask that you WP:CO. I do not think our policies on organizations and notability are perfect; I think they were informed by our experience with some organizations, but not others. I think it is reasonable to say that a national professional organization of a well-established profession is notable and needs no further evidence of notability - this does not mean that adding more sources should be discouraged. In fact, I never discouraged adding more sources, I encouraged it. I wrote a stub, and identified it as such. I thought and continue to think that the stub template is sufficient to make it clear that the article needs a good deal of work and this already includes adding sources. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way I like you appreciate Tim Vicker's sourcing - but only one speaks to the difference of opinion between myself and Phlegm Rooster, and to your own concerns. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)