Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association for Research into Crimes against Art

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. 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)

Association for Research into Crimes against Art

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Association for Research into Crimes against Art (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)

Non notable organization. Can't find any significant coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Organizations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete Agreed, I cannot find any reliable sources when I do a detailed search. Maybe worth mentioning in another article but definitely does not need an article of its own. Endersslay (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you please check the updated article. I have cited some 54 links to ARCA's work at this time. Many of the governmental and nongovernmental institutions, as well as mainstream newspapers and art-related publications. I am a bit puzzled that you could not find any reliable sources. I hope the ones I have added suffice. Avignonesi Avignonesi (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Avignonesi, replying to you here since the threads are getting mixed up. Sources that mention an article subject in passing are generally not sufficient to establish notability. See WP:SIGCOV and, for pages of this type, Wikipedia:SIRS, on the standards by which we evaluate this. Despite the new sources you've added, the problems raised in our longer thread below (most are primary or cursory mentions) remain in my view. As such, most of the substance of the article is not a synthesis of in-depth secondary sources, but rather original research. See Wikipedia:NOR. Arcendeight (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Noting I have just edited my typo "threats" to "threads." Apologies! Arcendeight (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Agree for similar reasons. Just carried out my own search and pulled up very little usable material. Also looked into alternative places to mention the subject, but none of the organizations or individuals mentioned has its own article. Arcendeight (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Bear in mind that ARCA works with relevant law enforcement agencies in Europe, the United States, and the UK, many of which intentionally have a smaller electronic "footprint" by choice or who would require layers of permissions to authorise having their names used. This should not reflect negatively on the CSO or its work mission, but rather speaks to the discretion required when working in the crime prevention and intelligence gathering arena. Avignonesi (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll take another look and change my vote if convinced, but I would emphasize that our standards for notable coverage don't make exceptions for supposedly secret or discreet activities. I'm not sure what you mean by CSO in your preceding mission. Is this another name for the ARCA? I don't see the acronym anywhere in the article.

Separately, I'm not convinced much of the content in the article is particularly notable. For example, that an affiliated researcher has been appointed to a position at the British Museum doesn't mean much; I would find that much more notable if there was an official partnership between the ARCA and the British Museum. Also 3/11 paragraphs in this article are about one sentence in a Dan Brown novel mentioning the ARCA.

In any case, I'll look into the sources added and consider changing my vote, but as it stands, even if the article is kept, I think much of this content should go. In the meantime, I'll do some copy-editing as its not in a great state. Arcendeight (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

On further consideration, I'm sticking to my original position. I further note that most of the sources included do not meet the criteria in WP:SIRS. By my count, only ~7 of 17 sources are secondary, the rest are used as primary sources. And several of these secondary sources don't stand for the propositions they're provided for. Two, for example, are about the Lot 448 film, but neither of the two mentions any tie between the film and ARCA. This does not count as significant coverage, which I think is really the crux of the issue: ARCA is, charitably, mentioned briefly only in a few secondary sources. By way of further example, the whole anecdote about the quotation in the Dan Brown book is only cited with reference to a blog post that does not contain the text the article claims it does! Arcendeight (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Arcendeight, I continue to disagree with/oppose this article's deletion though perhaps, earlier, it did need a significant update. In hopes that you will change your opinion, I will start this discussion explaining what a CSO is civil society organization using wikipedia's own entry for such organisation types. I have also added this to the article for clarification in case others are similarly stumped. ARCA has been in existence, providing expertise it its field since 2009. CSO is a term which is fairly common in United Nations circles and given there are articles describing them I thought it was already clear. Hope my change has rectified that. My apologies in advance as I assumed if you were editing/following this page, you yourself worked in Civil Society circles or in the fields of Law or not-for-profits. In the US, UK, and EU there are different categories for not for profit and they are divided into the types of "causes" and memberships they represent and in the US also according to tax status. ARCA is a CSO via European Union standards. Now on to the tough stuff, I've added significantly more citations using primary and secondary sources. They are in fact out there and available, if one knows where to look. Since that too may not have been clear, I have probably overcited, in hopes to put this to rest. I am happy to edit this page further to make it compliant with what you are looking for, though I do think the article now qualifies as being encyclopedic as well as verifiable and Notable given that significant coverage of ARCA's work and activities sited in this article are backed up and cited in reliable professional and media sources.

ARCA's been around and working on cultural property issues and crimes for more than a decade and has trained heritage professionals working in more than 40 countries. While small, it does important work and it is recognised by government institutions like the United Nations, UNESCO, Europol, Interpol and most countries with art and antiquities crime investigation units.

To link to some of its more public work, which I have cited and linked a PDF to ARCA's CEO was invited in official partnership to the British Museum's task force on this theft which involves more than 2000 objects from their collection. This is a select committee where ARCA's representative, Lynda Albertson, is only of just two of the 13 members appointed to the task force which have been publicly named. The other being James Ratcliff from the Art Loss Register. We cited this partnership as it is one of the few we are not judicially barred from discussing.

Albertson is also the individual whose work with ARCA is highlighted in the film Lot 448 which was a Tribeca Film Festival documentary entry. The film mentions ARCA both in the filming sequences, as well as in its credits. I've added a second film credit, both of which are in IMDB for verification.

As for the Dan Brown mention, I agree it is dated, and if it needs to go, I have no problems with it being deleted however it is verifiable that the organisation is cited in Brown's book, and the reference material he used was extracted from the blog article referenced.

If you tell me what else this article lacks or needs, I'd be happy to try and see if I can find the requested data, but I don't think this page is is violation of wikipedia's focus on encyclopedic articles, or at least any longer. Avignonesi (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose/Keep. I respectfully disagree. I was quickly able to find relevant links to important organisations who have worked with and cited the civil society's work including, UNESCO, UNIDROIT, and a European Commission funded project which substantiate this organisation's role in the art and antiquities crime area and therefore as a relevant entry to Wikipedia. I also note a recent documentary film, entered into the Tribeca film festival in 2021 which also highlighted the work this organisation has done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avignonesi (talk • contribs) 17:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no significant coverage from secondary sources. There are brief passing mentions, but that doesn't help the case for notability PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, mentions overwhelmingly fail to meet WP:SIGCOV. As such, most of the article is OR. Arcendeight (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I would like to state for the record that I have made no threats, and I would appreciate it if the editor named "Arcendeight" would edit his/her comment for clarity. I believe they may have meant to use the word "threads" ,as threats implies malicious behavior, but given they used the word "threats" twice in their Talk rebuttal, I would appreciate it if they would clarify their statements or lined through them acknowledging to the Wikipedia administrators reviewing this page for possible deletion, that there has been no such activity on my part.

Nota Bene:

I would be remiss if I did not add that it has not gone unnoticed, that the most vocal of the editors marking this article as AfD, "Arcendeight", previously reversed edits I made, in relation to a more contentious entry to an article regarding a living person which related to the subject's editorial decisions regarding the nonpublication of an article on the topic of genocide in relation to the current Isreali war on Palestine. While I disagreed with the revert. I removed myself from that article's editing in order to not engage in controversy.

Shortly after that, and apparently following the articles I have edited to the one on the Association for Research into Crimes against Art Wikipedia article, this same editor has now voted in favor of AfD. This is unsettling considering the probability of one single Wikipedia editor electing to edit two unrelated articles I have edited, out of the 6,781,369 articles listed on Wikipedia (as of February 2024) seems more than tangentially coincidental, especially given the fact that I had bowed out of editing the page where we had previously had opposing viewpoints.

Despite my concerns regarding this "follow" and in the spirit of moving forward and working to correct very real deficits to this previously quite stale article over the course of several days, in the spirit of collaboration I have done the following.

I have (again) reviewed Wikipedia:Notability which discusses that a article's entity must be verifiable and that it must have significant coverage in reliable sources which are more than a trivial mention, but do not need to be the main topic of the source material. I have also reviewed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which states that a company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

While I believe that this was already concretized with the edits I made to this article earlier this week, which included the addition of more than 60 primary and secondary source citations, including the Association for Research into Crimes against Art being cited in newspaper articles, journal articles, and high level institutional acknowledgements of the Association's work coming from UNESCO, UNIDROIT, ICOM, I would still like to try to further address the editors, who are in favour of the deletion of this article, concerns. Bearing in mind that they have said they "cannot find any reliable sources when I do a detailed search" and "Just carried out my own search and pulled up very little usable material."

Here is the listing of even more citations which meet the secondary source criteria which I have now added to this article. For clarity, I have listed the topic areas where I have inserted these additional citations and am happy to move them elsewhere if the editors believe they would be better positioned someplace else in the article.

ARCA's founding, listing as a nonprofit CSO and information about its work mission, are detailed in these secondary source books and conference papers. In addition I have listed a few secondary source journal articles.

Hufnagel, Saskia, and Duncan Chappell, eds. The palgrave handbook on art crime. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2019.

Van Herzeele, Richard. "16 Connecting the dots." Global Perspectives on Cultural Property Crime (2022): 220.

Christofoletti, Rodrigo. "Three Themes in Transition: Soft Power, Illicit Trafficking in Cultural Goods, and the Cartography of World Heritage Sites." International Relations and Heritage: Patchwork in Times of Plurality. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021. 263-284.

Christofoletti, Rodrigo. "Two Sides of the Same Coin: Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Goods and Repatriation Toward a New Relational Ethics." Soft Power and Heritage. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023. 261-279.

Massih, Jeanine Abdul, and Shinichi Nishiyama. "Final Conclusions and Remarks." Archaeological Explorations in Syria 2000-2011: Proceedings of ISCACH-Beirut 2015 (2018): 449.

Bruinsma, Gerben, ed. Histories of transnational crime. Vol. 9. New York: Springer, 2015.

ARCA's work and members research in capacity building, art crime during conflict, and the recovery of illicit antiquities is highlighted in these secondary source journal articles, conference papers, and book.

Hardy, Samuel Andrew. "Criminal money and antiquities: An open source investigation into transnational organized cultural property crime." (2020): 154-167.

Tsirogiannis, Christos. "Mapping the supply: usual suspects and identified antiquities in ‘reputable’auction houses in 2013." Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad de Granada 25 (2015): 107-144.

Sulistyo, Iwan, et al. "A Review Towards Global Crime Governance in Overcoming Trafficking in Cultural Property." 3rd Universitas Lampung International Conference on Social Sciences (ULICoSS 2022). Atlantis Press, 2023.

Guss, Aleksandra. ‘Międzynarodowa Konferencja„Konwencja UNIDROIT z 1995 r.’ Gdańskie Studia Prawnicze II, no. 50 (2021): 293–99.

Simone, Cristina, Mara Cerquetti, and Antonio La Sala. "Museums in the Infosphere: Reshaping value creation." Museum Management and Curatorship 36.4 (2021): 322-341.

Di Paola, F., Giuseppe Milazzo, and Francesca Spatafora. "Computer aided restoration tools to assist the conservation of an ancient sculpture. The colossal statue of Zeus enthroned." The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 42 (2017): 177-184.

Amore, Anthony M., and Tom Mashberg. Stealing Rembrandts: The untold stories of notorious art heists. St. Martin's Press, 2011.

ARCA's professional training initiatives are outlined in this journal article and book.

BARTLEY, JANE E., et al. "Accessing Continuing Education for Provenance Research." 16th Annual Society of American Archivists (SAA) Research Forum Proceedings. Chicago, IL: SAA. Retrieved from https://www2. archivists. org/am2022/research-forum-2022/agenda# peer Brummer Gallery Records.(2022) N. Vol. 1147. 2023.

Herman, Alexander. "Plundering Beauty: A History of Art Crime during War." Art Antiquity & Law 25.1 (2020): 93-98.

Huffer, Damien, et al. "From the Ground, Up: The Looting of Vưườn Chuối within the Vietnamese and Southeast Asian Antiquities Trade." public archaeology 14.4 (2015): 224-239.

Confirmation of ARCA's annual conference can be found in this secondary source book and two secondary (magazine) sources.

Rush, Laurie Watson, and Luisa Benedettini Millington. The Carabinieri command for the protection of cultural property: saving the world's heritage. Vol. 17. Boydell & Brewer, 2015.

O'Byrne, Robert. "Art theft is nothing new--the 17th century saw churches across Italy robbed of their Raphaels, wrote RW Lightbown in 1963." Apollo. Vol. 181. No. 632. Apollo Magazine Ltd., 2015.

Abungu, George Okello. "Museums: geopolitics, decolonisation, globalisation and migration." Museum International 71.1-2 (2019): 62-71.

The point now being, that I think this article demonstrates sufficient evidence, but has an excess of reliable sources (some 70 in total) which document, in overkill, the subject's significant coverage instead of a lack of documented noteworthiness, or lack of documented reliable sources independent of the article's subject.

Especially when I look at other Civil Society Organisation articles within Wikipedia that are themselves not up for AfD and are similarly well cited. I might also add that there are other extremely poorly documented societies, organizations, activist groups, etc., which have not been well documented as being noteworthy who have not been stubbed AfD.

In conclusion, I am happy to edit out the superfluous, or if the other editors prefer to do so they have the liberty to do so themselves and I think I have provided them with sufficient material to vet what they feel gets the job done.

I'd also like to stress is that this is not a static page marked for Afd where the original creating editors have no investment in fixing the problem. One can see by the number of edits, that I am actively trying to improve the articles deficits, now that said deficits have been brought to my attention. I believe in doing so, this article adheres to and complies with (current) Wikipedia's standards. I could use tightening, and I can ask another editor to do so, but I did not want to wade into the vote matching approach to addressing this via the AfD talk but rather where edits normally occur, in furtherance of improving articles themselves. avignonesi (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

3 sources that are 1) reliable 2) independent of the subject 3) significant and not passing coverage are better than 70 one line mentions. From a look over the sources you have added there are none that are all three of those things. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Parakanyaa, if you can please select the three out of the 70 you feel meet the standards, given that you have read all the new additions in the 2 hours and 16 mins since I posted, I would be pleased to know which meet your standards. But to say that all 70 are passing mention only is categorically inaccurate. avignonesi (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The onus is on you as the person who provided them. I checked several and they all seemed to fail. Feel free to provide three that qualify. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi PARAKANYAA, Early in my edits made this weeks to rectify problems on this page resulted in me deleting links and citations which didn't pass the 1-2-3 criteria you mention. All citations that are embedded now are:

1) reliable (most being academic sources, primary news sources, or publications from academic presses.

2) independent of the subject at the time the articles, books or conference papers were written, (though for transparency, three authors have been affiliated with the organisation AFTER the writing of the article or book indicated.

3) significant and not passing coverage. They speak to the Association's activities, its formation, its assistance in the recovery of looted and stolen art in the United States and the UK, and to it being called upon to comment on, or research, art and antiquities related crimes based upon its expertise.

Additionally, since 2010, this organisation has been noteworthy enough to annually draw conference attendees from around the world who attend ARCA art crime conference and have objectively written so in articles I've cited. Photos of these events showing 90-100 attendees are available on the association's own social media pages which I did not link to as they would be self referential.

Lastly since 2020 ARCA has been consulted upon and filmed regarding their work in investigations in two documentaries, both of which I have included and cited, one produced and paid for by SkyArts, a not insignificant channel, and the other sponsored by the jewellery company BVLGARI using an award winning director, as their entry into the Tribeca film festival. It doesn't make sense that a major Italian firm would sponsor an organisation that didn't hold standing in the field, nor would SkyArts waste valuable airtime approving a documentary which is/was viewable on their UK and Italian channels, which doesn't hold their viewers interest.

Respectfully, I think it is safe for now to say that we simply disagree. avignonesi (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

All you've done is WP:REFBOMB this article in an effort to save it. That is not a winning tactic. If you show me three of the many, many sources you've added that fulfill all three of what I mentioned above, then sure, but what you have provided is not a valid reason to keep the article. We can't keep it just because it's important, somehow, if there is not significant coverage to back up that fact. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I have already agreed that the total number of citation is in excess and have specifically asked for the dissenting editors assistance on which to keep and which to omit, moreover, because the distinction between primary and secondary sources is subjective and contextual, as Wikipedia itself states. To wit, I asked @PARAKANYAA for his assistance, which he declined. I was simply asking for constructive feedback from the editors in favor of the AfD to select which they felt provided the clearest examples of citations within Wikipedia's current standards for inclusion, especially in light of the fact that they felt this article should be removed.

I state on this record however that my "citation overkill" was done in part to highlight the fact that @PARAKANYAA claimed he could not find any significant coverage on the subject of this article and @Endersslay stated they too could not find any reliable sources when they did a detailed search.

The fact that I found so many, I think shows I have an interest in not only preserving the article, but underscoring that the other two editors are perhaps less well versed in the subject matter. If I am wrong, I ask them in the spirit of collaboration to please feel free to provide me with a counter viewpoint.

All that said, I categorically affirm that the citations added were not inserted to shore up my point, in contrast they were added to underscore the ease of which I found secondary sources documenting this organisation and to also underline the notability of the subject. My intent was for the opposing editors to take the time to read the linked existing legitimate sources to end this dispute, and knowing some are paywalled or are found in expensive academic books, I thought it best to make the list as comprehensive as possible and to then whittle that list back collaboratively.

While I have (repeatedly) stated that I am aware of the citation clutter, I have also (repeatedly) requested the opposing editors decide for themselves what they themselves want to see as a "legitimate source" given they are the ones voting in favour of AfD.

@PARAKANYAA said the onus is on me, but I am not in favor of deletion, so therefore I am not in a position to decide what he thinks does or does meet his standard. And as I perfectly know that no one knows everything or about the existence of everything. A subject's existence need not be known about by most people in order to qualify for an article. Some obscure physics and philosophy concepts are only known to a handful of scholars, but since these concepts are described by a number of reliable sources, Wikipedia elects to have articles about them. The study of art and antiquities crime should be no different.

With that in mind,

Here are not three but five select group citations. I have more than three as these are available to all editors as they are all open source whereas others are not.

Citation 6

Hufnagel, Saskia, ed. (2019). The Palgrave Handbook on Art Crime. published by Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1137544049. The editors of this book state who Noah Charney is and that he is the founder of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art. They also state that he serves as the editor-in-chief of The Journal of Art Crime, the first peer-reviewed academic journal in the field and confirm the organisation's website.

Citation 13

ARCA is acknowledged for its research by the International Council of Museums' - ICOM) International Observatory on Illicit Traffic in Cultural Goods. ICOM is an organisation made up of 45,000 members representing museums and museum employees in 138 countries. The ICOM observatory's citation reinforces that ARCA is part of a important network of international partners including international organisations, law enforcement agencies, research institutions and external expert stakeholders working in the field of illicit trafficking as it relates to cultural property which museum professionals can turn to.

Citation 42

ARCA is cited within the framework of the UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, and as a direct partner with UNESCO providing training in conflict and post conflict middle eastern countries. This citation clear shows that ARCA conducted this training, funded through UNESCO's Heritage Emergency Fund. As an added confirmation UNIDROIT mentions this training and photographs ARCA's CEO one one of the days of the training alongside a poster of the training session which has ARCA's logo clearly displayed alongside UNESCO's and UNIDROIT. https://www.unidroit.org/training-program-for-specialist-working-to-deter-cultural-property-theft-and-the-illicit-trafficking-of-antiquities/

Citation 53

In the open source court filings for the State of New York against Michael Steinhardt, Assistant District Attorney Matthew Bogdanos speaks to the fact that Ms. Albertson directs ARCA, an initiative to promote the study and research of art crime and cultural heritage protection and that in this role ARCA compiles dossiers on international trafficking networks and liaises with law enforcement globally.

Citation 55

ARCA was invited to UNESCO's Paris Headquarters as part of a Category 6 expert committee, aimed at reinforcing due diligence conducted in the European art trade while sensitising relevant stakeholders to the different implications of illicit trafficking of cultural property. This is confirmed by the PDF document which shows that Ms. Albertson gave a presentation right after the opening remarks in which she provided the attendees with an overview of the European art market and its role in the illicit trafficking of cultural property.

Thank you for your time. avignonesi (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

To the extent that you seem to allege bad faith, @Avignonesi, I categorically deny that. I edit regularly from my watchlist as you can see on my userpage. Your talk page is on my watchlist precisely because, when I reverted your edit a month ago, I posted a message there in order to explain my reasoning. As such, the AfD notification and subsequent CS1 error messages are on my watchlist. I apologize for any stress this perceived "follow," as you put it, may have caused. In any case, that is irrelevant to the substance of this discussion and my views are clear above, so I will bow out. Should you wish to discuss this further, I think my talk page or yours would be a more appropriate place so as not to clutter the AfD for the purpose of determining consensus. Warmly Arcendeight (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, easily meets GNG per sources existing and added. There seems to be a complaint about sourcing, with a call for "3, only 3". The first one I clicked on seems notable, so let's go one by one. Here's the first, from the Yale Daily News. Anything wrong with that one? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for contributing to this discussion and I agree this one is ok @Randy Kryn. I am not sure why the previous editors are asking me to justify with only three citations but I am trying to get this review for deletion rectified.

  What do you think about the other five citations that I posted above? I tried to select from extremely reputable international sources that I truly hope won't be contestable. avignonesi (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Don't interviews not count for notability? PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  @PARAKANYAA Having read interviews, I would agree with you that the Yake citation is Primary as per wikipedia's notations. So I have removed it, also because there were sufficient others which confirm the same details. That leaves 70 others if you want to go through these one by one. My suggestion is to look to the five I listed above as they assuredly meet your

  Citations 6, 13, 42, 53, 55. I specifically asked that these be reviewed as I am sure these in particular (and many others) meet the 1) reliable 2) independent of the subject 3) significant and not passing coverage criteria for justifying this articles presence within Wikipedia.

  I listed these as I did not want to slow you down with your review process with links that are paywalled or books you might not have access to unless you are able to visit important art historical libraries. avignonesi (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Citation 53: court filings do not count for notability

  Citation 55: being listed in a document with no commentary or discussion does not count for notability

  Citation 6 has them citing ARCA but no actual discussion of the organization.

  Citation 13 is just a listing of their resources (primary?)

  Citation 42, they're mentioned briefly but little to no discussion on them, this one is closer though

  None of these count. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Why would interviews not count for notability? The Yale Daily News is a reputable newspaper and (at least in the old bygone days) journalists usually check for accuracy and would be questioning the existence and importance of this organization if the data was inaccurate. The nomination states that no significant coverage exists, but it seems obvious from the added sources that it does. Why not just close the nom, or does the nominator still think that sources don't exist? Randy Kryn

Read WP:Interviews. Essay not policy of course, but still. Good for facts but getting interviewed by a reliable source doesn't make one notable. Yes, they exist, they're not a hoax, sources exist, but not ones showing significant coverage PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

An opinion essay. Please be aware of how journalism works (or used to). Journalists check, then double-check, sources, and clarify all statements to the best of their ability. Interviews are usually secondary sources, not primary, and individuals or facts used in interviews are then vetted, analyzed, and either passed as correct or the article or interview is scrapped. The opinion essay may not take the process of journalism into account. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Interviews are inherently primary as they are not independent from the subject, and therefore cannot count for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Did you read my comment above? Primary means the topic subject is writing about itself with no review or vetting being done. An interview of the subject or someone associated with the subject then falls under fact-checking and normal journalistic methods. Journalism 101. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The interview with the person who runs the organization is obviously not independent of the organization. All mentions of ARCA in that interview are from the founder of the organization - no journalism involved. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA, you're wrong. Interviews are not inherently primary. Also, Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent. If the local radio station interviews a historian about local history, then that doesn't make the historian non-independent of the subject of the interview (which is local history, not the expert).

Interviews can be independent or non-independent. An example of an independent interview is when the interviewer is a journalist, the interviewee is a historian, and the subject of the interview is a piece of history that the interviewee had nothing to do with. An example of a non-independent interview is when the interviewee is an actor, and the subject of the interview is the latest film the actor starred in.

Interviews can be primary or secondary. An example of a primary interview is when actors are asked questions about their personal experience with making their latest films. An example of a secondary interview is when the historian explains that there are two main points of view about a historical event, and that each viewpoint has different advantages or limitations.

As a mathematical likelihood, most interviews are primary and non-independent. This particularly includes nearly all interviews of celebrities and politicians. But "most" is not the same as "all". You cannot figure out whether a source is primary or independent merely by looking at whether it's an interview. You must consider whether the interviewee is talking about himself or about something else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Fair enough, and in future discussions I will take that into consideration.

Still, this is the entire portion about ARCA: "There was a big New York Times Magazine article about it at the same time “The Art Thief” came out, so the momentum allowed me to establish the ARCA, the Association for Research into Crimes against Art. It creates a bridge between academics and police by teaching police about art crime strategy with theory and practical knowledge." and "ARCA has established the first library with books published in the field of art crime and there are about 250 books in the collection,". He is talking about his organization. Non-independent. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If the source in question is an interview, then we'd call that non-independent and primary. But if it's a normal newspaper article, and one small portion of the article quotes him, then that newspaper article is still independent overall, so Wikipedia would treat it as an independent source.

Similarly, a newspaper article might be primary or secondary; see WP:PRIMARYNEWS for more on that. I find that, over the years, editors have been quick to assume that newspaper articles are "second-hand, and therefore secondary", but even though that's the common mistake, it's also important not to go too far the other direction. If the newspaper article provides comparison, analysis, evaluation, etc., then it's secondary (according to our rules). It can be a bit complicated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Noted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Here's the second page source I clicked on, from UNESCO, a reputable organization. What is wrong with this one? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  There's nothing in there that is "significant coverage" of ARCA. They are mentioned, that isn't a point for notability when there's nothing else. I will concede that is a lot better than most of these other sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The whole article is about the collaboration event between UNESCO and the Association, everything in it concerns ARCA and UNESCO. Not understanding keeping this open, the nom has been well addressed and improvements in sources and to the page since its inception fulfill what should be the main purpose of AfD, to save articles that are savable with further effort (in this case the effort seems to have been successfully put in). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This is not saveable. At best there is one source that sort-of-maybe counts and nothing else. Interviews with the people who run an organization are inherently connected to that organization (therefore failing the criterion that sources be independent) and do not count for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Please read Journalism ethics and standards. These standards cover interviews. Interviews, if published by reputable newspapers, magazines, or hard-news television shows, are secondary sources. They are vetted. They are fact checked. As for "this is not saveable" that seems an incorrect assessment, as it has already been saved by the addition of many reputable sources (I've clicked on a couple more, the page is notable, and this discussion has become a time sink). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Not a single source I have seen seems to show this organization being notable, merely 70 very brief mentions. Notability is not inherited and someone who is in the organization mentioning the organization in an interview for two brief sentences certainly does not count. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Now about 6 times larger than when nominated, on raw bytes, & seems ok. Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Johnbod and Headbomb: This org publishes the Journal of Art Crime. It's not listed in Scopus, and I'm not sure how else to determine whether art and/or law journals might be notable. Do you have any suggestion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Sorry, no - I don't know much about journal notability. But many notable organizations must publish non-notable journals. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. I have checked twenty of the references cited in this article and find them to meet the secondary citation criteria as well as the 1) reliable 2) independent of the subject 3) significant criteria. Some of the other citations are unavailable to me due to paywalls or the fact that the academic publication/book cited I do not personally own.

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)

Considering this user has never edited before today and the singular other edit is related to art forgery I assume there is a COI involved in this user's statement. Send some of those 20 references that fulfill the requirements, then. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I have multiple degrees in art history and am interested in this field I have no COI. I simply started with simple things, articles on subjects I have an interest in and feel confident. If I had edited only one article on high speed trains, would you discount my opinion because I have never edited on art before? I don't think any new editor starts out editing by choosing a subject they are not interested in. I may be new to editing but not to the subject of crimes and criminals in the art world which is why I took an interest in this page, and when I saw it was up for possible deletion, I wanted to give input.

Before voicing my opinion though, I spent time reading the entire article itself before making suggestions for improvements and also verified the links in this discussion and many of the others linked in the article which were available to me. (as I already stated).

I will close with saying I understand, Wikipedia encourages editors to: Please do not bite the newcomers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

So thanks for making this newcomer feel genuinely (un)welcome.

Happy Easter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittyroseandtheart (talk • contribs) 23:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 14:12, 14 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)

• Keep -- sources already in article are more than sufficient to satisfy GNG. I see above some people arguing that notability standards for organizations are higher than the GNG. This is false. A subject is notable if it meets either a subject specific notability guideline OR the GNG. Central and Adams (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  There is not a single source in this article that would satisfy GNG PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, clearly that's your opinion, as you've already stated it about a zillion times. I'm happy to trust the closing admin to evaluate the arguments by quality rather than quantity. Central and Adams (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Comment: This has been REFBOMBED real badly. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @StreetcarEnjoyer, Thank you for contributing and for commenting.

I am (painfully) aware that there are too many citations currently and have acknowledged that in the earlier threads above and have been actively working 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. Rightly, the article was outdated, and in need of a revamp in keeping with contemporary Wikipedia standards which I then did, making extensive changes.

Despite 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 tried to add as many open source references as possible, in part to show that the subject was not as obscure as the early reviewers thought.

This was done in part to prove a point, that either those recommending deletion had not looked very hard, or perhaps given its niche topic of concern, the dissenting editors didn't know where to look, or perhaps couldn't access or didn't take the time to look through some paywalled, print, or out of print publications which confirm this organisation's notability. I thought adding to many, rather than two few 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. Which now brings us to from a poorly cited article to an overly cited one.

As you can see from last week's lack of consensus, some very seasoned editors agree that there are sufficient secondary citations and notability, and one new-to-Wikipedia editor (as well as myself) both spoke to the article's need for reworking, which is a separate discussion apart from whether it meets criteria to stay or should go.

For the moment, I haven't started that reworking as I don't want to eliminate the citation overkill until we achieve a consensus on which citations are critical and which should go. Once that's done, I am happy to adjust there placement to achieve a smoother article or can leave those changes to anyone else interested in taking on the task.

I even created a citation shortlist which I had hoped the dissenters or other editors passing by might comment on. Again, no consensus.

End comment, I do feel this article meets notability criteria and has sufficient secondary sources cited to confirm this and therefore believe it should not end up in the dustbin.

Likewise, Several established long term editors, one of whom is a former administrator, also agrees and we have established that this agency's work has been acknowledged by United Nations affiliated organisations such as UNESCO and other NGOs. I commit to going in and editing out the redundant or superfluous citations once we conclude the AfD discussion, which I had hoped would have been yesterday, but now see will continue for another round. Avignonesi avignonesi (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Hi @StreetcarEnjoyer, Thanks for your comment.

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)

• Keep: Has been thoroughly improved. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Comment to anyone voting keep: the standards on notability for organizations are substantially higher than a lot of other topics. This article really hasn't been improved at all, merely had several dozen one line mentions thrown at it.

  Of the 5 sources of the 70 that were suggested as workable, none were all three of significant, indépendant and reliable. People seem to be simply voting keep because they see a lot of sources, but actually checking these sources shows that they're all just offhand mentions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Of my posts above, discussing only two of the many sources, you accepted one as fine and argued that the second was an interview, which I countered as a secondary source. You now say that none of the sources are "workable". Did you change your mind on the first source I suggested? We can go source by source if need be. And to ascertain if the "article hasn't been improved at all", even though, as Johnbod points out, it has been expanded sixfold since nominated, are you saying that none of the expansion is relevant towards easing your concerns? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Interviews are not independent so they cannot count for notability, especially with regard to organizations. Even if it did, there are two sentences even partially about ARCA, failing the "significant" aspect. I also addressed every source that was presented to me. I did not accept the UNESCO source as fine, it's still affiliated with ARCA and is not enough about them to be significant. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  We disagree about interviews and had an extended discussion above as to the merits of interviews. Another, the Antique Trade Gazette, it seems that the British Museum used the services of this Association. This indicates trust and prior knowledge of the British Museum to the reliability of the Association as a reputable organization which could both address and solve its concerns. How is this irrelevant? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Being trusted does not matter if there is not significant coverage. WP:NORG says "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

  ARCA has not. It does not matter how important they may or may not be, there is no coverage of them that is 1) significant 2) reliable 3) independent 4) secondary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Lest I be accused of "Policy Bombing" I would like to point out gently that Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars and that an uncivil environment is a poor environment.

  When editors make unverifiable assumptions as to another editors's motivations in casting their vote it is not only unconducive to achieving a positive outcome to this or any other AfD , but it can also be interpreted as disparaging.

  In the prior AfD round for this article, we have already experienced discussions between experienced editors with many years of Wikipedia editing under their belts who clearly disagreed with other editors' opinions, finding sufficient secondary citations which they attested to as being significant, independent and reliable.

  However questioning the intention and integrity of a newly minted editor, as was done in the last AfD session, or implying that other editors in this or the previous AfD session did not actually check these sources and voted to keep this article "because they see a lot of sources" is not only pure conjecture, but it could also escalate what is already a spirited discussion into a personal argument that no longer focuses objectively on the problem at hand.

  Statements such as those used above may be construed by some editors as WikiBullying or Point of View (POV) railroading and are counterproductive to achieving consensus.

  I personally respect every editor's right to disagree with me regarding my opinion that this article merits saving from deletion. But I would encourage everyone who is involved in this discourse to respect each and every editors' rights to draw their own independent conclusions, even if their opinions differ from one's own. Avignonesi (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  It's generally considered suspicious when someone makes their account entirely to argue in an AfD, and edits only in the topic area. Read WP:SPA. Sure, they could just be someone with an interest in art crime but making your account solely to vote in an AfD is not a good sign. You, yourself, have edited almost exclusively in the field of art crime, including writing the majority of this page 12+ years ago, editing mostly the articles of people and organizations associated with ARCA or art crime more broadly. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hardly anything I've read posted by Parakanyaa seems to be uncivil. Generally, it is considered very suspicious when several brand new accounts appear to vote on an AFD. However, I agree that immediately casting aspirations is a poor idea per Wikipedia:AGF. And to the new editors arriving here, just remember that AfD is not a vote. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Sometimes, individually acceptable statements add up to an overall feeling that is not so nice. I assume that this cumulative effect is what the editor complains about, rather than an isolated insult. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• keep - improvements made since nom. Sigcov and WP:GNG appplies.BabbaQ (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Which of the sources are SIGCOV? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Parakanyaa, I think you need to stop asking this question. Editors are not required to agree with you, nor are they required to WP:SATISFY you by convincing you that their decision is acceptable. We already know you think that this is an inappropriate subject for an article, and we promise that we will not forget your opposition when it comes time to close the discussion. You can stand down now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough, I just think that people are seeing 70+ sources and automatically thinking "yeah, notable". But I'll back off. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The morsels of information about ARCA provided by a number of the cited sources (although not by all) do seem to add up. -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• I dropped a COI notification on User talk:Avignonesi, and removed some, just a bit, of the purely promotional text in that article. I mean, that was bad. And the ref-bombing--I hope someone else will help with that. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  I had been working off line on editing this article for another round without so many references but was undecided if it would be more beneficial to publish those edits during, or after, the conclusion of the AfD process. I'd also hoped other more experienced contributing editors would give guidance on which citations were preferred or pick this task up themselves. I was also heeding The Teahouse's advisory to not litigate every editor's comment in this removal discussion.

  I have no COI, as I replied to @Drmies on my talk page. I have merely invested considerable hours researching and understanding this org's work, trying to reshape the content of the article in a meaningful way and with the sole motivation of saving it from deletion.

  If my editorial tone was perceived as overly ardent, others could have freely edited themselves to curb my enthusiasm.

  One thing I learned during this AfD process is that I'm rusty with Wikipedia editing. So much so that I didn't even know the term citation bombing, until it was referred to my interventions. And while I initially found the accusation insulting I later tried to internalise it as valuable constructive criticism for my over-insertion of citations in the attempt to prove the article's worthiness. My intention was never to obfuscate, but rather to improve the original article with too few sources by pointing out there are sufficient sources out there.

  What I know now is:...

  Each time I try to address one editor's comment to resolve this article's deficits, new concerns about the article itself, or the editors in favour of keeping are voiced.

  My effort to encourage other editors to take a crack at fixing the overly abundant citations has been met with resistance, with one editor saying the onus for fixing them is on me. Only to have that person's recommendation countered with a suggestion that perhaps I shouldn't be writing on this article at all.

  Until now I have advocated for the article remaining part of Wikipedia and made edits trying to work towards that end, no matter how contentiousness the AfD discussion has become and despite speculations about my motivations or that of other "keep" contributors.

  Wikipedia should be about collaboratively working to create a stronger article when and where possible before deletion, not simply removing an article because no one is interested in the topic enough to give it, and its citations a fair and objective review and not simply wasting valuable editing time critiquing those critiquing, something I too am guilty of.

  In the span of this one debate, I could have (hopefully) improved 15 other articles as could many of the other responders.

  So I will bow out and leaving this save-kill AfD discussion to others. In the grand scheme of things I hope someone will pick up the gauntlet and redevelop this article into something worthy of keeping.

  Defeat is not the worst of failures. Not to have tried is the true failure.

  Wikipedianly yours. Avignonesi (talk) 15:50, 18 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)

Arbitrary break 2

• Another relisting! There are already more comments than most Afd discussions get , and clearly no consensus to delete. Clear keep. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Probably relisted due to the fact that this article was refbomb'd to hell and back, and in all this discussion, no one has brought up WP:THREE sources that address ARCA in depth. AfD is not a vote. If there are three good sources that fulfill our requirements for notability, I would have no issue changing my mind, but no one has addressed the argument. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Agreed, seems an obvious keep (or, at least as Johnbod points out, certainly not a delete close). This is a chance to ask something I've often wondered about. Do relistings give extra weight to anyone who comments afterwards? Say, as in this one, things have been talked out and a keep seems obvious (will hawk my only essay, WP:RULEOFTHUMB), but then it's relisted and one or two editors wander by for a ten-second look (happens more than we pay attention to and judge weight by) and vote delete because they usually vote delete, thus throwing the entire discussion aside to put closers attention and concentration on remarks which come after a relisting. Do closers often do that? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  If I had closed this, it would have been no consensus. There has been no clear assessment of sourcing meeting necessary depth. Refbombing here (not you, Johnbod) and in the article doesn't help any closer. Speaking only as myself Randy Kryn, no, all participation is equally weighted assuming it's policy compliant. Star Mississippi 15:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  I mean, I really wouldn't say it's been talked out, as the one two keep votes that did look at the sources in the article admitted that there are no sources that qualify for notability, but that the fact there were so many brief mentions somehow made it notable - which is contrary to policy and rewards refbombing, and could be done on basically any article for an organization/company. There's gonna be a bunch of short mentions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Star Mississippi. As for PARAKANYAA, please strike out and greatly edit some of that comment. I am a Keep who looked at and read the adequate sources, and then tried to point out to you several which easily show notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

No. None of the sources you presented were independent of ARCA, or significant coverage. A two sentence mention by the founder is not significant coverage. For organizations, there must be significant, reliable, independent coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

My strike out request was specific to your statement "the one keep vote that did look at the sources in the article" when it's obvious that myself and many other keep commenters had checked the sources. As for independent, we discussed that and disagreed above. As I mention in my non-prize winning essay WP:RULEOFTHUMB, things get a bit bitter between editors when more than one (and even one if obvious) relistings occur, which is why when quite a few editors agree on a Keep with good reasoning then the nomination should be closed, either by the nominator or an admin. This one probably should have ended long-ago. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I replaced one with two. Anyway, independence aside: they were not significant coverage. In what world is two sentences significant coverage? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• This is hellishly difficult to follow, and PARAKANYAA's point about just three good sources, please is well made, and unanswered. I picked source #22 at random for the sentence "In addition, the Association publishes scholarly books, articles, and reports, and organizes multidiciplinary lectures, conferences, and training opportunities focusing on contemporary topics related to art crime investigation, risk management, and restitution.". It turned out not to support any part of that sentence and not even be about this subject at all but about a marble sculpture. Source #19 turned out to be a 272 page book with no clue as to where in the book to look. Source #17 was a similar length book with no chapter nor page number. This is three randomly picked sources from the refbombing, and they are either vague handwaves or outright false sourcing.

  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)

  I'm inclined to agree. I participated in the original discussion and just now saw both relistings. I continue to think the coverage is insufficiently deep. Following @Uncle G's example, I take at random sources 27 through 34.

  1. 27 stands for ARCA's mission. The only mention of ARCA is a byline that a person mentioned is their CEO and says nothing about their mission.
  2. 28 stands for the same and at least mentions ARCA once (and three more times as a byline), though it doesn't really speak to their mission but rather an event theu organized. Not WP:SIGCOV, I think, but at least its a source that could support something (if not what it currently does) in the article.
  3. 29 is paywalled, so I'm afraid I'll skip it for now.
  4. 30 and #31 stand for the following: "At the grassroots level, ARCA's objective is to identify emerging and under-examined trends related to the study of art crime and to develop strategies to advocate for the responsible stewardship of our collective artistic and archaeological heritage." #30 It links to an association of archeologists that puts ARCA on a list of organizations "with a similar goal" to it. So it could tenuously stand for the proposition. Still, far from in-depth coverage. #31 merely points to a news story about an antiquities dealer who was arrested. It cites ARCA's blog for the proposition that the dealer had a family history of art-related crimes. Arguably a better indicator of significance than any of the other ones so far, but still not any in-depth coverage of ARCA.
  5. 32, #33, and #34 stand for the proposition that "In furtherance of their outreach goals, researchers affiliated with ARCA provide consultative expertise and training on a number looted or stolen cultural property in circulation within the legitimate art market." But #32 merely states that a stolen statue was identified by someone affiliated with ARCA at a trade fair who then notified the police. #33, while being about the same individual, only mentions ARCA as a byline for another subject. #34 includes ARCA on a list of organizations dedicated to "Protecting cultural heritage, documenting loss, reporting crime," which does not directly support the proposition and is, in any case, not significant coverage.

  Overall, the sources vary in their actual support for the proposition they stand for, and they seem to uniformly be surface-level mentions. Arcendeight (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• There are good sources all over, again, at random, look at source 62. It's about the CEO of the organization being featured in a film documentary about her work. I've discussed several good sources now, they exist throughout the references on the page. A personal note, this is one of the easiest "Keeps" and may be the most needlessly prolonged conversations I've read at AfD (and there've been plenty of stale-but-continuing-regardless discussions). Documentaries, operating a successful long-published journal, called into the British Museum and other major institutions who trust, use, and endorse the organization (if they weren't then the museums wouldn't use them), on and on. In summary: Jeez Louise. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Notability is not inherited. Just because a person working for an organization is interviewed doesn't mean that has anything to do with the notability of the organization. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment -- Holy cow but this AfD would be a lot easier to understand and certainly a lot easier to close without nom's continual badgering of everyone who disagrees with their take. Central and Adams (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  No one has to agree with me, I'm just pointing out the fact that the supposedly good sources are not in fact GNG worthy. No one has to respond. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  You should read that essay. It's like it was written about your participation in this AfD. It's eerie. Central and Adams (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  "Offering a rebuttal to a comment is also fine, although arguing repetitively is not". I'm not demanding a response, and I don't see anywhere I have. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:11, 25 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)

  Just saying. Central and Adams (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Admin comment Those who have already participated have made their POV known. Please allow for other voices, especially if you want this to close with a consensus found. If you have a new point to make, please then by all means do so but continuing to rehash the same points isn't moving the needle. Star Mississippi 23:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• Because I have nothing else to do, source eval of this revision (I tried to do a table but it nearly crashed my browser)

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)

• Comment out of boredom I spent a few hours looking for sources. The problem with searching for sources on this topic is that so many things cite them that it is a royal pain to find. I'm not as strong on delete anymore, it's bizarre because they have done so many things and seem to be very respected in this field (alas not a keep rationale) but are barely talked about on their own in great detail. I won't complain if this is voted keep ATP, I'm gonna try to look more and see if there's anything in the paywalled sources because, maybe. I've found a few articles that are very very close to fulfilling SIGCOV, but nothing that exceeds it. The sources are all very reliable and there's so many that address them but it seems no one has anything to say on them besides saying the basics, actions and quoting them. IDK anymore tbh

If there's nothing or this doesn't qualify a plausible redirect is probably Noah Charney, he founded it and mentions it a lot.

but anyway, for future notice to everyone in this AfD, if you want to save an article please do not refbomb i beg you that turns everything into a nightmare, just get 3-5 of your best sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Out of the numerous sources, only 3 of them (excluding paywalled and book sources, which I have no access to) could count for notability, and even they're debated on whether or not they're WP:SIGCOV. I'll be happy to change my opinion if consensus on the coverage of the sources is significant, or if the inaccessible sources are reviewed, but for now, I don't believe the subject is notable.

Industrial Insect (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2024 (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.