Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence

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. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an online project, for which I can not find any references which discuss this project in detail, and which are not connected with the subject itself (of which 2 references are). Whilst two lines is valid as a stub, for an article it is not enough as there is clearly a lack of multiple, independent third-party sources which discuss the subject in such detail (rather than in passing) to be able to write a substantial article. I will gladly eat my hat, and withdraw the nomination if sources can be found which would enable at least two coherent paragraphs to be written on the subject. But I have looked and I'll be damned if I can find anything substantial. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 16:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 50k hits on google is not enough to show the project is notable? There are hits on G News but only one is in English and I am unable to use the others. It is cited at least 33 times on G Books and around 100 times on G Scholar. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This source I have found goes into detail on the project [1] The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is the problem with all of the sources I have found. They are either press releases (such as that link), or they are from sources which are connected with the subject, or they are blog sources and the like. I really can't find anything that is independent and indepth (meaning more than an arbitrary or passing mention). It may warrant a mention in an article on the organisations (if they are in themselves notable), but I am failing to find anything substantial here. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 16:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that just about every university on the planet links to this project? It is akin to a journal, just online and a free resource. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At present there is too little coverage of the website to establish WP:NOTABILITY or support an article. TFD (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Parent organization is notable, and it is RS for its scion organizations. It is referred to in a number of cites found bia GScholar - thus it is used by people in that area. OUP is also a reliable source - thus meeting WP notability requirements. The founder is notable per articles from AFP etc. [2] shows even further the notability of a group assciated with CNRS. [3] further gives Semilin's c.v., and credentials, as well as mentioning this online encyclopedia. [4] establishes the notability of the CNRS. [5] establishes notability of Sciences PO. Thus parent organizations are specifically notable, and the online encyclopedia has been mentioned in WP:RS sources. No remaining reason to delete, hence keep. Collect (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think that something can be notable by association, otherwise all websites would be notable, because the internet is notable. Can you provide any articles that have been written about this website? How can we have an article about an encyclopedia when such a basic fact as to whether it is neutral or a reliable source cannot be established through third party sources? I recommend we merge the article into its parent. TFD (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What TFD is stating, is that notability is not inherited. That is a common, and long-held, principle on WP. Notability can only be met by, sorry for being a broken record, multiple, independent, in-depth sources. Additionally, the number of links on Gscholar is not relevant here, as all of the links are to the actual website itself. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 18:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This appears to be a peer reviewed academic publishing company, no less notable than the hundreds of other publishing companies and university presses listed in Category:Publishing companies by year of establishment. Set up by the Institut d'Études Politiques de Paris, it also appears to be a not-for-profit organisation and thus is notable per WP:NONPROFIT, being international in scope. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are however forgetting point 2 of WP:NONPROFIT. Being "international" in scope, merely means that a non-profit with a local scope is not necessarily notable. But point 2 is not negotiable in terms of notability of any subject on WP. That being it requires multiple, independent, in-depth sources. As to "appearances" of whether it is peer reviewed...the website certainly makes that claim, but it is impossible to verify because, and we get back to the original reason, there is a complete lack of multiple, independent, in-depth sources which discuss the subject. WP:N is certainly not met. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 18:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is a guideline and not a policy. In the case at hand, we have OUP and other RS sources referring to the project. We have the parent organizations being absolutely notable, and their pages about the project are RS. Your cavils that this is not notable wear thin indeed. There is an essay WP:DEADHORSE which should be read. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is a guideline, yes, BUT, WP:V is policy. Refer specifically to Wikipedia:V#Notability which states very clearly "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 19:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note it is covered by "NewsRU.com" [6]. I trust this is RS. Liberation.fr [www.liberation.fr/monde/010127137-crimes-et-massacres-de-masse-en-ligne] is also RS as far as I can tell (major newspaper). Russian and French reliable sources. Notability in spades, doubled and redoubled. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly a translation of the French news article states: "The issues we cover are too sensitive to sites like Wikipedia."[7]. Amen. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does everything have to turn into a war zone with you people? I think I am actually going to be grateful to get blocked, this place is a madhouse. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep(commenting as Russian speaker). There are tons of Russian publications about Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence: this, this this, and so on. Last link is Russian electronic "encyclopedia of encyclopedias". Hence this article definitely belongs to wikipedia, and it can be significantly expanded based on these sources. Biophys (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your first link is to an article on a right-wing Eastern European website called www.kuruza.com that talks about "Anti-wikipedia". The fact that extremist websites link to this website is insufficient to establish notablity, you need to show that reliable sources have noted the connection. Note that we do not have an article about kuruza, and I can find no rs to support an article. TFD (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly notable in France, with its launch mentioned in Le Monde. [8] The article on fr.wikipedia.org predates this one as does the article on zh.wikipedia.org. The current article is not particularly well written or researched. Mathsci (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Mathsci on both notable and work required. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:04, 10 October 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.