- 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. Nobody supports the very perfunctory deletion nomination. Sandstein 11:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- International Humic Substances Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not meet the WP:NORG. Let'srun (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Colorado. Let'srun (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Long-standing and recognized organization in the field [1]; among other things, they maintain and provide a set of standard reference materials (IHSS standards) that are widely used in soil research [2]. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Elmidae is right to keep this, but I'd point out that Humic acids are the gardener's equivalent of complementary medicine, a thing where products whose composition isn't even known to the producer are offered for sale with promises of enhanced plant growth based on extremely scanty evidence and no scientific basis. Like complementary medicine, everyone involved in humic acids is very vocal, but the terminology is more impressive than the underlying facts. We should keep this organisation not on the basis that it supports important science, but on the basis that it's generated evidence of notability in a field that gets written-about. Elemimele (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know much about participating in these, feel free to delete my comment if I am not meant to say anything.
- I also don't know if humic acids being (allegedly) unfounded or under-evidenced as useful in gardening really undermines the scientific credentials or focus of the International Humic Substances Society. But from what I see of the research they support, I'll go ahead and mildly doubt it. It doesn't seem like they are restricted to supporting research into if whichever acid helps whatever garden crop, and instead include a wide range of topics about humic substances.
- In general, I find even short records of professional societies to be very useful for a popular encyclopedia to cover. Even historically, paper book encyclopedias would keep track of these things because it's an incredibly useful resource for someone - especially a student or any young person - to run into. It records the landscape of a profession. Sometimes it helps underline the mere existence of an otherwise obscure profession or specialization. And this is an international society. It is not a 20 person club of friends with similar interests. It appears referenced directly in many academic articles. And it continues to have conferences (is not defunct). Not to be rude to people interested in other things, but I can think of a lot I would delete instead. Soil is what we depend on for life as much as water and air. Whatever is going on in the field is particularly notable to me.
- The article should have more sources, for sure. It would also be good to have it better integrated into the larger Wiki and linked to from more soil science related articles. And should be re-written to be a little in the first paragraph to be less ad-copy-ish. I may just do that small part, then people can undo it if it is worse.
- About potential other sources, here's some:
- I might even be able to add this source, as it's less technical:
- ^^ Chin, YP., McKnight, D.M., D’Andrilli, J. et al. Identification of next-generation International Humic Substances Society reference materials for advancing the understanding of the role of natural organic matter in the Anthropocene. Aquat Sci 85, 32 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-022-00923-x
- So, unsurprisingly, I vote Keep (if I get a vote) MariahKRogers (talk) 08:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.