Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ANU Research School of Asia & the Pacific


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Theo polisme  01:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

ANU Research School of Asia & the Pacific

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable academic unit. Only independent references are a pair of database entries with no depth of coverage. I was going to suggest merging to Academic structure of the Australian National University, but that lacks independent sourcing too, so it looks like Australian National University might be the best merge and redirect target, if that's the consensus. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers,  Riley   Huntley  06:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers,  Riley   Huntley  06:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers,  Riley   Huntley  06:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:ORG. there is no place for academic units to have articles unless covered by third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep I'm having trouble finding sources about this institution (which is tricky given the large number of false positives which come up from news stories quoting academics employed by this institution and their bylines in academic journals), but this was a fairly prominent and well-known academic institution until it was recently separated into separate (and larger) institutions. The school's heyday was largely in the pre-internet era, but it's significant that it's formation was one of the initial priorities for the establishment of the Australian National University in 1947 . Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Prominent? http://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=%22Research+School+of+Asia+and+the+Pacific%22 / http://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=%22Research+School+for+Pacific+Studies%22 suggest that isn't the case. Unless is was perhaps known by anything name? And yes, trove has lots of pre-internet .au newspapers. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really - as far as I'm aware, Trove has next to nothing beyond the early 1950s. Given that the ANU wasn't really up and running until well into the 1950s it's not surprising that there's next to nothing on it via the NLA. I'm not having much luck with more recent stuff in Factivia though, hence the very weak keep ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - before the funding cuts demoted it, it was considered to be the highest point of Asian studies research units in Australia - you wouldnt have got Ricklefs or Fox as heads if it wasnt - the notability of the time was significant, specially in Indonesian and south east asian scholars who were associated with the school. The notability and significance is of the staff and visitors in the time it existed...
 * In some cases some of the staff were the experts in Australia on specific asian subjects...
 * RSPAS - if the article is changed or moved - the content must go somehwere, rather than delete. It also had a publishing arm Pandanus Books, and had various conference and lecture series that have hardly been equalled in relation to asian studies. RSPAS oldies, tremble in your graves...   SatuSuro 08:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * could you please provide sources to back all these claims. LibStar (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with LibStar on this. A single truly independent reliable source making these claims and I'll withdraw my nomination. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Commentas a far as I am concerned - the Mathew Ciolek internet item, and the Adelaide based PhD on the relationship between the school with the federal government - suggest this was no ordinary research school that comes and goes SatuSuro 04:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * the onus on keep voters is to demonstrate existence of sources. WP:MUSTBESOURCES LibStar (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -- The former RSPAS (it has now been merged within a wider institution in the ANU) was for about 50 years the leading centre of Asian and Pacific studies in Australia. It was -- without question -- one of the leading sources of knowledge in Australia (and in a number areas, across the world) about developments in the region. International agencies such as the United Nations, the World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank frequently drew on the expertise of the School.  However, LibStar is quite right that the references need to be improved. I have contacted former senior staff of the Research School and have asked them to provide appropriate information in response to the points that Stuartyeates and LibStar has pointed to. They have promised to do so.  My thanks to Stuartyeates and LibStar for taking this matter up. Pmccawley (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep the bar for notability of such academic units within universities is very high. I think the information above shows that it meets it. The burden at AfD, incidentally, is on the person proposing deletion. But yes, we do need these additional references.  DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Senior staff from the ANU have now provided considerable additional material which has now been added to the page.  The page has also been reformed somewhat to improve flow and readability.  It seems clear to me that in any reasonable sense, the former RSPAS was a notable institution. It produced a huge volume of publications over a wide range of disciplines, supported extensive fieldwork by scholars in all major areas of the Southeast Asia and Pacific region, and for many years was seen as a major global centre of regional studies. However, it is in the nature of inter-university relations that the flow of public praise from one institution to another is often muted.  Individual scholars often get considerable recognition, but institutions are cautious about praising rival institutions. Pmccawley (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Withdraw as per complete rewrite that's happened during this discussion, including much work by User:Pmccawley. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment My thanks to Stuartyeates.  I wish to acknowledge that I think Stuartyeates and LibStar are right to have raised this issue. The current revised entry, to be honest, still needs improvement. I plan to press senior staff from the former RSPAS to provide more and better material. I have received some additional material in the last few hours and will ask for more.  I express thanks to Wikipedia colleagues for this helpful discussion. Pmccawley (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.