Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immigrant Ancestors Project
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 05:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Immigrant Ancestors Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod declined. Academic organization with no significant claim to notability and all references to it in google searches are from internally published sources at BYU Sadads (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Example of a externally published source: Ryskamp, George R. (2008), "European Emigration Records, 1820-1925", in Hedegaard, Ruth; Melrose, Elizabeth Anne (eds.), International Genealogy and Local History: Papers presented by the Genealogy and Local History Section at IFLA General Conferences 2001-2005, International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, ISBN 978-3-598-22036-4. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Second example: Wright, Raymond S, III (2009), Ancestors in German Archives, vol. 1, Genealogical Publishing Com, pp. ix–x, ISBN 9780806318158
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Though the Ryscamp is a peer reviewed article published outside the university, it still is written by a BYU professor, presumably working for the project. It is a little bit like saying press releases prove that an organization is notable, professors promoting their own projects in journals, doesn't mean it actually means something, it just means that it is an acceptable route of research, and their peers can decide if it is useful. I have not accessed the Wright, so I am not sure what to make of that, Sadads (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Equating a self-serving press releases from a PR flack with a peer reviewed article by a distinguished scholar published by one of the most prestigious organization in their field? Really? That's a bridge too far. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Peer review means that the methods and ideas are feasible and reasonable within the field, not that they are accurate or accepted (especially in Humanities fields, where other people are not expected to be able to reproduce the methodology). Scholarly publication is just as messy, if not more so, then publishing information from press releases in news articles. Publishing about pet programs or centers at a university doesn't mean much unless someone from outside is commenting on it, Sadads (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The author of this paper was invited to present it at the annual conference of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions; this isn't some accidental publication that somehow slipped thru the cracks. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Peer review means that the methods and ideas are feasible and reasonable within the field, not that they are accurate or accepted (especially in Humanities fields, where other people are not expected to be able to reproduce the methodology). Scholarly publication is just as messy, if not more so, then publishing information from press releases in news articles. Publishing about pet programs or centers at a university doesn't mean much unless someone from outside is commenting on it, Sadads (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Equating a self-serving press releases from a PR flack with a peer reviewed article by a distinguished scholar published by one of the most prestigious organization in their field? Really? That's a bridge too far. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Though the Ryscamp is a peer reviewed article published outside the university, it still is written by a BYU professor, presumably working for the project. It is a little bit like saying press releases prove that an organization is notable, professors promoting their own projects in journals, doesn't mean it actually means something, it just means that it is an acceptable route of research, and their peers can decide if it is useful. I have not accessed the Wright, so I am not sure what to make of that, Sadads (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no third party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Ryskamp paper is included in a conference report published by Walter de Gruyter – K. G. Saur, a major academic publisher. I think that is sufficient. --Hegvald (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2011 (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.