Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Economics Association


 * 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. ...given David Gerard and DGG's continuing Keep comments (non-admin closure) Lourdes  15:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

World Economics Association

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The Handelsblatt article is more of an interview, with information about the organization being provided by the interviewees (I mean, how can the newspaper check the statement that 3600 people joined in the first 10 days). The article (opinion piece?) in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience is written by one of the founders and therefore not independent. All other sources are either primary or not independent. No indication of meeting WP:ORG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The Handelsblatt article is based on an interview with a number of people including Edward Fulbrook and Robert Johnson. Johnson is the Executive Director of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. He is a member of the WEA, but he is not a founder. The Handelsblatt article does not attribute the number of WEA members to Fulbrook, as stated in an edit to the Wikipedia page - he only comments on it (this also implies that Handelsblatt does not check its sources). The article should therefore stand as an independent, reliable source.
 * The article in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience is indeed written by one of the founders, but was published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal. They presumably did not see it as a biased opinion piece, as implied here.Sjm3 (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * That's not the intended implication - but it's still not a third-party source - David Gerard (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about it being biased. It's just that it's not a subject that normally is covered in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, so I suspect it's more like an opinion piece or editorial than a research article. Given that it was published in a special collection (and the continuous doubts about the quality of the Frontiers Media peer-review process make it anybody's guess what kind of peer review it underwent. Whatever may be the case, however, it is not independent. As for the Handelsblatt, the only way they could have gotten that information would be from the WEA themselves, without any independent way to verify those figures. --Randykitty (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * For the question about number of WEA members, the Wikipedia page could be modified to say that the numbers came from WEA (the article does not cite Fulbrook in particular). However, I assume the reason the page is up for deletion is because the Handelsblatt article is not considered a reliable source. I find it hard to understand how a Handelsblatt article, with multiple sources quoted (yes one is a founder but he isn't the only one), does not qualify as a reliable source which independently establishes the importance of the WEA. Any article on the subject is likely to quote a founder, but that doesn't make it invalid. In fact the writer of this article makes an effort to speak also with critics of the organization.Sjm3 (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A single source probably isn't enough to swing notability for an organisation. I have nothing against the organisation (it strikes me as a good idea, reading about it), but I'm also familiar with how Wikipedia works when I say all this. It might just be too soon for an article, that happens a lot. Is there anything else third-party in the organisational press clippings file? - David Gerard (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I added a reference to a post from Positive Money which cites (and reproduces) an article from the WEA newsletter. But a number of citations remain flagged "non-primary source needed" even though I have added the Handelsblatt article to each applicable case (and I think Handelsblatt would be surprised to learn they don't qualify as a reliable independent source).
 * I have also added a reference to a 2016 book from Oxford University Press which discusses the "good pluralistic practice of pluralistic bodies like ... the 10,000-strong World Economics Association." The book also cites one of the WEA conferences.
 * For the description of the WEA manifesto, I cite the manifesto, but again this is flagged. I am new to this process, so maybe I’m missing something, but this doesn’t seem to make sense - if I want to quote an author, I cite his works, not a secondary source. So in a sentence beginning “According to its manifesto” surely it is appropriate to cite the manifesto, and refer directly to the organization’s material?
 * Another flags says the article “may contain improper references to self-published sources”. Not sure what this means exactly. If it is because the article cites WEA material, of course it needs to, but it is transparent about it and backs it up with other sources.
 * A reference to a UNDP post is flagged as a “possible user-generated source”. I see the point the editor is making, because it is based on a press release, but the UNDP does not publicise every press release it comes across, and doing so helps establish the notability of the organization. It was certainly not a user-generated source, if by “user” the editor means me.
 * An associated page on the WEA journal Economic Thought is also up for deletion. It does not seem to have a debate page, but since it is linked to this WEA page (and will presumably go if this one does) I will bring it up here. The notice claims there are “no independent sources”. Again, I cannot understand how a Handelsblatt article is not an independent source. A list of notable contributors was also deleted with the explanation that it was “unsourced name-dropping” and needs independent sources discussing the importance of these people for the journal. Providing a list of contributors is not name-dropping, it is relevant information that is useful for readers and helps to establish notability. It is used in other pages, e.g. the economics journal Revue économique. Are standards being applied equally across the board? And why exclude this information anyway? Also, given that a list of contributors is trivial to check directly (the papers are online), why require a secondary source?
 * The WEA article now cites a number of independent sources including Handelsblatt, Positive Money, UNDP, and a new book from Oxford University Press. Steve Keen is on the board so is not independent but his article should help establish notability. The Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience article may not be independent but it is peer-reviewed and is an appropriate source for the description of the review system. The WEA journals (including Economic Thought) have been running now for several years and have published articles from well-known contributors. Given all of this, and the fact that the WEA claims to have 13,500 members and is “the world’s second largest organisation for professional economists” (just their website, but in line with Handelsblatt piece), I believe the page under discussion should qualify to belong in Wikipedia's list of Economics organizations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Economics_organizations). So keep. Sjm3 (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I just do not see the basis for claiming that the Handelsblatt article is somehow not independent RS-coverage. The nominator is just handwaving about what he sees as deficiencies in the article (heavens! information about the organization being provided by the interviewees!!) but this has no relation to any Wikipedia policy. The Handelsblatt piece is textbook demonstration of notability according to the general notability guideline.
 * RS-coverage is otherwise thin here and wouldn't support notability on its own. But the Handelsblatt profile is pretty clearly enough to justify an article per policy. Keep
 * The nom has also prod-ded Economic Thought and real-world economics review – which I think is plausible, but these articles should properly be merged into the WEA article (on the assumption that it will be kept) rather than deleted outright. TiC (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * yeah, the journals should probably be merged in - David Gerard (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as it stands - there's more than one RS talking about it, and it's got prominent people involved. The sourcing is still very primary and is not great, but I think it passes prima facie notability - David Gerard (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment We have one source that is about the association (the Handelsblatt article). The rest of the sources are either not independent, press releases, or a book review of a book published by the association (which is only listed as publisher, nothing else). None of the journals published by the association meets WP:NJournals either. Whatever notability there is is very tenuous at best, one source is not enough for WP:GNG or WP:NORG. --Randykitty (talk) 09:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 *  Keep this is sufficient information for a relatively major organization.  DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 15 September 2016 (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.