Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for Khmer Studies


 * 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. Michig (talk) 06:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Center for Khmer Studies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite the fancy name, I don't see anything that indicates notability, as expressed through independent sources. This doesn't mention the center, and is the only functioning link. Google largely turns up announcements made by the institution itself. - Biruitorul Talk 21:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It is currently sourced only to its own web site and to deadlinks elsewhere. And it is part of a problematic cluster of articles together with Lois de Menil (whose AfD is overrun by puppets) and George de Menil (deleted after recent AfD, G4 speedy declined by ). But I found two sources that look independent, reliable, and in-depth enough to support WP:GNG and WP:ORG: an article in the Phnom Penh Post and a post on the official blog of the US Ambassador.—David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Update, George de Menil article kept, at least for now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as per User:David Eppstein, and this (believe it or not, the NYTimes fact-checks the wedding announcements aggressively to make sure claims of affiliation are both notable and verifiable.  Few news columns are as aggressively fact-ckecked as the weddings page, as I understand it, groomsmen are prone to sending in hoax affiliations, and mothers-of-the bride exaggerate - plus it's intensely read.  Therefore the Times puts staff hours into it). E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, sure, the Center exists, but quoting that would be like using a wedding announcement to document the existence of, say, the Heritage Foundation or the Brookings Institute. In other words, it's not an especially quotable source. And what is truly indicative (at least for me) about this institution's lack of notability is its seemingly total absence from academic sources (other than the announcements I mentioned). You'd think an entity funded by Americans and registered in the US, that deals with a field (Cambodia Studies) not entirely neglected there would have some impact on the American academic landscape, but no. - Biruitorul Talk 14:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable, but reasonable does not always apply in area studies, fields where internecine bickering can make even the darkest corners of WP editing look collegial. I don't even know that the name of the organization has been constant, or there isn't some variation to how the name is cited that would make work done there easy to find for someone actually in Cambodian studies (a highly politicized field). In fact the problem with this AFD is that there is very little RS on this outfit, but the sources that do exist (cited by User Eppstein) are highly reliable. (I don't mean the wedding thing in the Tiems, I didn't propose adding that to page, I only brought it here because there is so little, and yet, what there is looks sound.)  At the very least, we know that this organization exists and has a location in Siem Reap, a town that is a mecca both for serious scholarship and for the very, very rich - not  only because it has some of the world's highest-end hotels, but because it is a pet historic rescue project of choice for the world's very,very rich.  Who may, at times, work better with the notoriously corrrupt authorities of Cambodia by keeping projects under the radar.  I just don't know.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, there are lots of the type of mentions/thanks for use of the Center in the course of research that one would expect to find in the forwards of books on Cambodia.  Confirms that this is a locus of scholarly work on the region in all fields.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, a simple search on books google produces a plethora of confirmation. Citations to papers published by the Center, conferences held.  It will remove all doubts re:notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Additional refs: 1/"Center for Khmer Studies Junior Fellowship Program in Cambodia" University of Chicago]  which says "The Center for Khmer Studies (CKS) and Henry Luce Foundation seek to introduce undergraduate students to Cambodia and Khmer civilization. " the Luce foundation, is  a highly respectable organization referred to in a number of WP articles--we need an article on them. . 2/ "Center For Khmer Studies Summer Junior Fellowship Application 2014" Sciences Po.   (the most impt French university in social sciences.    It already has :  "Center for Khymer Studies - Supporting research in Cambodia"  Official Blog of WilliamE. Todd,US Ambassador to Cambodia
 * In addition, WorldCat shows it has published a number of books & held a number of seminars  .  DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 25 April 2015 (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.