Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association for Research on Ethnicity and Nationalism in the Americas


 * 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   delete.  Sandstein  18:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Association for Research on Ethnicity and Nationalism in the Americas

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This organization has 32 Google hits, and no Google News, Scholar, or Books hits. The lack of Scholar hits is especially telling, since this is an academic association. Deprodded. No independent sources. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm not sure what your experience with academic associations is, but there's no reason that they would come up in a Google Scholar search. They often sponsor publications like a journal, but they do not publish it themselves. Aside from that, this is a well-known organization in the field, as your Google search indicates: 32 hits, most of which are from related organizations linking to this one or advertising its conferences, may not be a high number in absolute terms, but is not insignificant in this case. At the moment, ARENA's highest-profile activity is the the H-Net Discussion Network that it runs, which is the largest and most active in the field of nationalism studies. Please see the archives of this network, accessible from the article page, for evidence that hundreds of academics are aware of and participate in the Association's activities. – SJL 17:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your experience with Wikipedia sourcing requirements is, but as creator and sole editor of the article, you have provided no WP:Reliable sources. I have not examined the network it runs, but each Wikipedia article is supposed to be judged on its own merits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a good case of the value of Ignore all rules. The group is made up of serious academics. Its board of advisors and steering committee include a number of notable academics, and it publishes or sponsors the publication of peer-reviewed work which Wikipedia editors will be happy to use as references on difficult and specialized topics. There is plenty of evidence that it brings together notable scholars to talk about their work. Sometimes you just have to accept notability when you see it. By participating in the association, academics are expressing their opinion that their time is well spent doing so, and that is a fair indicator of notability.

In a broader sense, I would say that any scholarly group that is part of a recognized national or international federation of scholarly groups ought to be recognized as notable on that basis. --Eastmain (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree strongly with this reasoning. Could you find any independent sources? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that the usual pile-on of dependent sources is commencing. Next, somebody will drive by this AfD saying that the sourcing has "improved" because they glanced at the page. Still not notable. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Phlegm Rooster, I take exception to your tone, and ask that you please review WP:CIVILITY. Everyone here is trying to improve Wikipedia and, as such, deserves to be treated with respect. It would serve your argument better if you can explain why the sources that have been added to the article are not acceptable. – SJL 18:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How can one be uncivil to a person who has not yet commented here? You seem to know something about Wikipedia, but persist in adding unreliable sources to the article. Please explain why they are reliable. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By contrast, two similar associations have tons of possible reliable sources: The Association for the Study of Nationalities has 16 Google news hits, 213 Books hits, and 820 Scholar hits. The Association for the Study of Ethnicity and Nationalism has 3 Google News hits, 153 Books hits, and 209 Scholar hits. Compare this with the 0 0 0 for this association. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is true that ARENA is not as notable as the ASEN and ASN, but that does not mean that it is not does not meet the criteria for notability (and you certainly should not be removing links to it from those articles while this AfD is still open [1; 2]).
 * I have provided sources that I consider reliable. The earliest one is the link to the H-Nationalism Discussion Network which, as I said above, is the best evidence of the association's notability. Although many of its functions are similar to a regular mailing list, this network (along with all of the others hosted by H-Net, an independent organization) also publishes original material such as book reviews that is not found anywhere else. This, I think, is analogous to the journals published by the other two associations (though, as I said, not at the same scale). Following your proposal to delete the article, I and other people have added several other sources to help shore up the association's notability, including news stories and listings that include the association that are in no way dependent on it. – SJL 19:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. None of the preceding discussion helps to meet the primary criterion for WP:ORG, which is significant coverage by secondary sources. I do not feel that an academic association for a small subfield is of such earth-shaking importance that we can justify breaching Wikipedia's customary guidelines. RayAYang (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete If this were really notable it should be TRIVIAL to find reliable sources to back it up. The fact that no one has been able to despite being called on it is pretty telling. DreamGuy (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand these characterizations. In what way – and I ask this with sincerity – are the sources that have been provided unreliable? I created this article solely because its subject is an important organization in my field (which, despite RayAYang's belittling remark, is not insignificant; thousands of academics are engaged in the study of nationalism), along with the other two organizations that have been mentioned. – SJL 20:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete (reluctantly) The difficulty with this particular organisations is that its new, and has not yet done much to make a record or show actual notability. So far, it has
 * 1) sponsored two conferences, with the results of the first published as the book Nationalism in the New World in English and in Portuguese, and the second apparently held, but not yet published. The first book is reasonably widely held, by 190 WorldCat libraries (which includes the US and canada, but not Central or South America, so I would guess additional holdings there).  But one moderately successful published conference  does not make a notable organisation. There are other conferences listed at their site, but those are actually just panels or symposia held as part of larger conferences.
 * 2) Sponsored one continued discussion list, whose notability remains undetermined. This depeneds on how widely it is used, as demonstratd by references to it from other sources. But I think we can often determine it from intrinsic sources, if we can measure them objectively: I see the list has recently between 2 and 10 posts a month. I am not sure what level is necessary to be notable, but it is considerably more than this.  H-net is very clearly notable, but they sponsor just one of its lists.
 * 3) plans to publish a book series. When it publishes some, and they get major reviews, then it may well become notable.
 * This is fundamentally the same situation as a fledgling company or music group: they first have to do substantial work that gets noticed, and then they get an article. I want as extensive coverage of notable things in the academic world as possible, but only of the notable parts. I think we should be willing to determine this in some cases by intrinsic value, as an alternative to counting sources, but the indications are not yet here.  The purpose of an encyclopedia is not publicity.DGG (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thorough explanation – it is much more helpful than simply being told that I am 'doing it wrong'. One note, though: other than my subscription to H-Nationalism, I am not affiliated with the ARENA, and had no intention of providing it with 'publicity'. I'm just trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of my field. – SJL 22:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG's detailed analysis. --Crusio (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG. Could well become notable in a few years but insifficient evidence to demonstrate notability for the moment. Nsk92 (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2008 (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.