The result was keep. In this dense thicket of comments, I see a consensus to Keep this article among discussion participants. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Non notable organization. Can't find any significant coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
It is my opinion that this improved article meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, however it could still use more work for smoother reading and perhaps arranging some citations in a better way and removing the redundant ones. A better alternative to deletion is to place the appropriate issue tags on the page, alerting others who read the article to the improvements that need to be made.
As it stands though it is overall a well cited article with numerous confirmatory secondary sources which I had no difficulty in confirming via open source and digital news sites.
While the subject of this article is an organisation working in a niche specialised field that may be more well known to those familiar with the fields of art historical research and art and antiquities restitution, it is no less notable than other organisations that are listed in wikipedia hyper-focused on art crime research, such as the Max Stern Art Restitution Project, or the Antiquities Coalition, India Pride Project, and others. All of whom have pages and are organisations bigger and smaller than this particular one. who have not been cited for removal and who also do equally fine work.
It is my opinion that many really good articles today started their Wiki life looking really awful. This one being 3/4th of the way to where it needs to be to be in good form. If not knowing about a subject were a good reason for deletion, we would be left with really few if any articles.
To me the article on the Association for research into Crimes against Art should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittyroseandtheart (talk • contribs) 16:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus which currently is split between HEY and delete, as the newly added references might not satisfy SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I am (painfully) aware that there are too many citations currently and have acknowledged that in the threads above and will work to rectify this. In the beginning, this article was AfD's with two initial reviewers recommending deletion saying they couldn't find citations about the organisation.
Knowing that when an article meets WP:N, the mere fact that its subject may seem obscure to these editors does not, under any circumstances, mean it should be deleted, I went back in and added what has now been commented on as too many citations.
This was done in part to prove a point, that either those recommending deletion had not looked very hard, or perhaps given the niche topic, didn't know where to look, or perhaps couldn't access or didn't take the time to look through paywalled, academic, or out of print publications which confirm this organisation's notability. I thought adding them would assist in the review process.
The plethora of citations was also done to validate secondary sources on the organisation's formation, its work, its training programs, and its conference initiatives and to collabboratively ask which ones the reviewers preferred.
Then, as you can see from last week's lack of consensus,some very seasoned editors agreed that there was now sufficient secondary citations and notability, and one new-to-Wikipedia editor (and myself) both stated this with the added acknowledgement that the article still has structural defects and needs reworking, which is separate and apart from the AfD discussion.
For the moment, I haven't done that reworking as I don't want to dedicate time to it if its going to be taken down and if it isn't I didn't want to eliminate the citation overkill until we achieved a consensus on which citations should stay and which should go. Once that's done, I or any other editor willing to take on the task can adjust the citation placements of those references kept, and (hopefully) achieve a smoother article in like with contemporary wikipedia standards. I even created a citation shortlist which I had hoped the dissenters or other editors might comment on. Again, no consensus.
End comments, I strongly feel this article meets notability criteria and has sufficient secondary sources cited to confirm this and that it should therefore should not end up in the dustbin.
Likewise, Several established long term Wikipedia editors, one a former administrator) agree citing that this organisation is notably referenced as a nongovernmental organisation by UNESCO. I am willing to go in and edit out any redundant or superfluous citations if reviewer can just give me some guidance on which they want left in once this AfD discussion is concluded, which I had hoped would have been yesterday, but now see will continue for another round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avignonesi (talk • contribs) 06:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to assess actual notability, not source volume. As a caution to @Avignonesi: that you're flooding this discussion as you did the article. Please allow other editors to weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
One more random pick just in case: source #7. This turned out to be not about this subject at all. It turned out that the sole connection of the source to the topic was a 26-word potted author biography for the article. It was a source written by Noah Charney, but not actually about either Noah Charney or this subject.
The fact that the article and this AFD discussion has been drenched in this stuff, coupled with a reluctance to just point to three good sources for two weeks, now, is a good indicator that there isn't the sourcing to be had, and some reaching is going on.
Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process and should step back and let others express their opinions, as you have already made your points clear.Central and Adams (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
When you dominate a conversation by replying many times, others may see you as attempting to "own" an article or the subject at hand. This is a type of tendentious editing.Central and Adams (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
1 - paywalled/physical source that i can't check 2 - paywalled/physical source 3 - paywalled/physical source 4 - paywalled/physical source 5 - paywalled/physical source 6 - paywalled/physical source 7 - mentioned in a byline, not sigcov 8 - mentioned in passing, not sigcov 9 - not mentioned 10 - mentioned once in passing 11 - listed, no discussion 12 - arca describing itself 13 - ? wouldn't load for me 14 - mentioned once in someone's author bio 15 - paywalled/physical source 16 - paywalled/physical source 17 - paywalled/physical source 18 - paywalled/physical source 19 - mentioned once in passing 20 - paywalled/physical source 21 - paywalled/physical source 22 - mentioned once in passing 23 - mentions their ceo gave a speech, approximately one sentence, 46 words discussing them. better than most but 46 words is not sigcov 24 - mentioned in a byline about an author 25 - mentioned once in passing 26 - listing of ARCA's courses by ARCA 27 - not sigcov, byline 28 - an event they organized, not sigcov 29 - paywalled/physical source 30 - not significant coverage, listed with no analysis 31 - not significant coverage, they're used as a citation 32 - not significant coverage, mentioned for one sentence 33 - not significant coverage, mentioned as byline 34 - not significant coverage, listed with no analysis 35 - one paragraph describing the courses they sell, 134 words, which is probably closer to significant coverage 36 - paywalled/physical source 37 - paywalled/physical source 38 - ARCA itself, fine for reliability, does not count for notability 39 - information from ARCA itself posted to another site 40 - information on a course they hosted, no information about them as an organization 41 - ARCA itself 42 - mentioned once in passing, no discussion of them as an organization 43 - not even mentioned 44 - paywalled/physical source 45 - an event they hosted 46 - says they held conference, talks a bit about the conference but nothing on the organization itself. this might count. maybe 47 - from ARCA itself 48 - from ARCA itself 49 - paywalled/physical source 50 - paywalled/physical source 51 - listed once, not sigcov 52 - paywalled/physical source 53 - this is a law filing and doesn't count for notability 54 - listed, no commentary, not even a description 55 - ARCA itself, not independent 56 - about the journal, does not mention ARCA 57 - not sigcov, not even mentioned, though their journal is 58 - movie listing site, reliable for the fact the film exists, not sigcov 59 - IMDB, usergenerated and unreliable 60 - the article cites them, but doesn't talk about them much at all 61 - mentioned once in passing 62 - interview with the founder. might count? at least the interviewer is saying things about arca so maybe but idk if its enough about the organization 63 - IMDB, usergenerated and unreliable |
The only sources that might count for notability are 35, 46, and 62, but even then they're iffy on "significance" (though they seem reliable). If anyone can prove any of the paywalled/book sources discuss in depth, but considering they were all added in such a short timespan, I have my doubts. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Sandbox Upload
I've uploaded a draft revision attempting to rework this AfD article on my sandbox. Please note that my revision was created several days back, before @PARAKANYAA 's last comment and after I had bowed out of the discussion in frustration over what seemed to me to be personal attacks. When this was written, I had hoped that a consensus could be reached allowing the article to stay, and if so, this sandbox version, might be adjusted by one of the "Keep" editors.
I (hopefully correctly - first time using sandbox with others) elected to upload this reworked version to my sandbox vs. directly over the live article given there have been several editors who have referenced citations they approved of, or disapproved of. My thinking was that I didn't want to muddle this discussion further or confuse people with differing citations numbers.
I also, where possible eliminated citations from expensive paywalled texts that some editors don't have access to, though Wikipedia:Citing sources does not require me to do so. I did so to eliminate any editor's concern that I simply stuffed random citations from costly books or subscription sites as a way to sneak past editor scrutiny. Removing some of these weakens the article's "keep" defense, but I was trying to find a middle ground to achieve concensus. I must point out that experts who follow art crime know where to gain access to these reference books so I can attest to actually having looked at them, despite one of the editor's comments that these citation additions might have been inserted to obfuscate.
There are still too many citations which don't meet all three criteria, but overall its a clearer article I hope can be saved. I hope someone will consider working on it where I have left of.Avignonesi (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)