Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis


 * 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. Other than some obvious puppetry, the only cogent argument to keep was DGG's assertion that a journal published by a major university press implies notability. That argument doesn't seem to have gained any traction from the other participants. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Hate to go to AFD so quickly, but I've been digging since it was created and there just isn't enough significant coverage to demonstrate notability here. It is fairly new and you find a mention or two, but I didn't see any real coverage, thus it fails WP:ORG. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

--

Well, SBCA is eight years old, is well-established, is growing quickly, and has recently expanded internationally. It meets annually in Washington DC, and most recently attracted more than 300 attendees, including some from as far away as Italy, Australia, and New Zealand. The current President is Kip Viscusi, a prominent academic who merits a page of his own. As does the President-Elect, Susan Dudley. The SBCA is the professional organization for practitioners of BCA, including academics and government economists, both in the U.S. and around the world. The last five Presidents of the United States, of both parties, have issued Executive Orders making Benefit-Cost Analysis the primary tool for making regulatory decisions; other countries have followed suit. The U.S. Congress is considering legislation to codify the BCA principle into federal law, and the Senate recently held hearings on that topic, with Dudley as a key witness. In fact, the full Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee is holding another hearing tomorrow to consider such a bill, with Dudley again appearing as a witness. SBCA is well known within the subset of economists who practice BCA. It may be a somewhat obscure field to those outside the profession; but, given its influence over public policy, it certainly is notable. I am a member of the Society, and created the page. User:EMF2GO —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Benefit-cost analysis is where economic research concerning the allocation of scarce (public) resources among competing end uses meets the nuts and bolts of actual policy-making by government agencies. The SBCA has just published Volume 6, Issue 2 (Summer 2015) of its journal, the Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, edited by Glenn Blomquist and William Hoyt at the University of Kentucky. For just the year 2015 so far, the SBCA's official journal has apparently had 8,580 home-page views, 19,860 Table-of-Contents views, 7,924 Abstract views, and 3,090 Full-text views (Source: 9-15-15 emailed Report from the Editors of the Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, with data from Amy Laurent, Cambridge University Press, September 4, 2015). The SBCA's official journal was published by de Gruyter until the end of 2014, but moved to Cambridge University Press at that time. As of today, Cambridge is apologizing for some loss of functionality at the JBCA website, but when this site is working, it should be possible to verify the caliber and scope of the research associated with the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis. Disclosure: I am a past member of the Board of Directors of the Association, I have served on the selection committee for their annual conferences, and I have organized sessions for these conferences. - Trudy Ann Cameron, Mikesell Professor of Environmental and Resource Economics, University of Oregon — 128.223.109.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Additional notable economists associated with the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis include Arnold C. Harberger (Past President) and Editorial Board members Richard Revesz, Richard Zeckhauser and John D. Graham. The Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis was launched in 2010, so it is fairly new but its reputation and citations are growing. An article from the Spring 2015 issue regarding EPA air pollution rules received press coverage, including this article: http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/25954/20150526/epa-air-pollution-rules-more-uncertain-effects-expected.htm. Disclosure: I am the Executive Director of the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis. Emdowd (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC) — Emdowd (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Fails at WP:CORPDEPTH for lack of significant third party coverage. Notability is neither inherited, nor transferred, so regardless of how famous a member may be, the organization must still stand on its own merits. Only one source has been provided for the entire article, and a lot more need to be presented to make the article be high enough quality to keep.  Scr ★ pIron IV 20:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Add to the previous concerns the obvious off-Wiki canvassing by bringing members of the organization with a clear conflict of interest to weigh in on the matter, not to mention the COI of the article being created by a member.  Scr ★ pIron IV 21:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

---

ScrapIronIV, in response to Dennis Brown's initial comment, I sought help from some members of the Society who might be in a better position than I am to document the notability of the Society to the satisfaction of Wikipedia editors. Nobody's trying to pile on here; they simply tried to provide what was asked for. And, indeed, I am member of the Society, which I disclosed. As a member, I pay dues, but I do not receive any compensation nor any other material benefit. I don't see this as a COI, any more than my donating to a charity (or contributing to Wikipedia) would disqualify me from writing about it. This is a professional academic society, not to my knowledge involved in any public controversy. I think my description of it was factual, verifiable, and neutral in tone. I understand we disagree about whether it is notable. What prompted me to create the page is that, during a web search, I landed on Wikipedia's "SBCA" disambiguation page. It listed four organizations -- none of them, in my view, nearly as notable as the Society. This struck me, and would strike anyone familiar with the Society, as a weakness in Wikipedia -- one that I sought to remedy.

As a further indication of the Society's international character, here are a couple of cites by a British think tank, and one in Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMF2GO (talk • contribs) 21:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Please note that bringing in various people to support your position is a clear violation of WP:CANVAS and is seen as vote stacking, ie: their votes are likely to be discounted or ignored by the closing admin. As for the article, it isn't about google searches, it is about the somewhat clear policy here on inclusion.  Either an organization passes the criteria or it doesn't.  How charitable, wonderful, big, exceptional or old they aren't doesn't really matter.  That might not make sense, but we are an encyclopedia, thus our goal is to simply document what other 3rd parties have said, assuming the third parties are reputable press type organizations who are unaffiliated with the group.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  04:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  04:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as my searches found nothing better than this. SwisterTwister   talk  04:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. That it publishes a journal with Cambridge University Press is evidence of significance. (the journal was recently transferred from deGruyter) .I'm prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt.  DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent notability. Relies on primary sources. We have articles about the prominent members Arnold C. Harberger (Past President) and Editorial Board members Richard Revesz, Richard Zeckhauser and John D. Graham but that does not imply the association itself is important neither does any of the linked biographical articles suggest otherwise. jni (delete)...just not interested 19:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show it meets the notability criteria for an independent article.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:27, 23 September 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.