Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campaign for Social Science

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. Ged UK 13:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign for Social Science[edit]

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

Entirely promotional article on organization with entirely promotional purpose; distinguished board, but no evidence of actual activity DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, articles published by the UK press suggest it is a notable and active organization. See also:

Social science graduates 'have best job prospects' (BBC)
Social science graduates ‘more likely to get a job’ than science or arts students (The Independent)
Rise in extra exam marks and the positive impact of chatrooms (The Guardian)
etc.

--Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Campaign for Social Science’s view. We note there are four reasons for page deletions, as given in Wikipedia’s guidelines: failure to keep to a ‘neutral point of view’, to ‘verifiability’, to the ‘no original research’ rule or to the copyright requirement. The first is dealt with usually by editing only, rather than deleting a page, the guidelines say. The last does not seem to be an issue here.

As regards ‘verifiability’ and ‘no original research’, the page has 10 references (one added since the Deletion note was published). Four of these are to national UK media such as The Guardian, three to the UK’s main magazine for the higher education sector, one to a prominent social science forum, one to an academic publisher, and one to a YouTube video. These are the sources for information about the Campaign’s lobbying, events, media coverage and publications. Further links to media articles about the Campaign can be seen on the News section of the Campaign’s website.

On the discussion site it is said that the Campaign has an entirely promotional purpose. In the sense that it promotes and campaigns for the social sciences in the UK, this is true and is the main purpose of the Campaign. But many other Wikipedia pages feature organisations with a promotional/campaigning function as their main objective, so this does not seem to be a reason for deletion.

On the discussion site it is said that the page itself is entirely promotional. Everything on the page is correct and it is open to all to edit this with more information.

The page has evidence of the Campaign’s activity - it has: given its views to a House of Commons Committee; organised 19 roadshows; run a conference on riots in England; launched the latest in its series of booklets on social science research (in November 2013, with speakers including Professor Lord Richard Layard and the Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham); and released a report on graduate employment (in October 2013). These are valid campaigning activities. (The Business Secretary Vince Cable and the Higher Education Minister David Willetts have also spoken at Campaign events which are not mentioned on the Wiki page).

The Campaign is supported by 78 universities, learned societies and publishers, and it was set up by the Academy of Social Sciences, the representative body for social science organisations in the UK. The Campaign’s Board is headed by Professor James Wilsdon, Professor of Science and Democracy, University of Sussex, whose deputy is Professor Michael Harloe, former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Salford.

We suggest the page does not contravene the Wikipedia guidelines such that it needs to be deleted. Should there be any part of it that does not meet the guidelines, we suggest that this part be removed rather than the whole page, a procedure recommended under the guidelines. We would be happy to provide more information, links and testimonials should you wish this. Apologies for such a lengthy reply. Camsocsci (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an organization with that number of professors on its board (UK usage of professor) is likely to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2013 (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.