Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnicity and Democratic Governance

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 Delete. This is a case where an appropriate article on this subject may be defendable in the future, but at this time is not supportable with our requirements for verifiability in independent sources. The subject is not patently non-notable, but this article's existence in mainspace is currently premature. I'll be happy to userfy it for any interested editor. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity and Democratic Governance[edit]

This is an academic research project which, though it may be very worthy, has no third-party sources to prove notability in Wikipedia terms. There is also a problem with conflict of interest, and so a concern with promotion, as the article author is a member of the project. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think an funding vehicle for research is of significance. As the nominator says, there aren't isn't much independent coverage for this project. Institutes and projects only rise to notability if they perform groundbreaking work that get lots of outside attention. RayAYang (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I respectfully disagree. "Groundbreaking work" is not a condition for notability on Wikipedia. Take the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies, for example, which the nominator himself successfully defended against deletion. What's the difference between the two? – SJL 04:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I was imprecise. Formally, my objection to the article is that the article does not meet the threshold for notability of organizations, defined in WP:ORG, which is significant (as opposed to incidental) coverage in reliable independent sources.

I was making an offhand comment that projects, programs and other funding vehicles for academic research are unlikely to meet this standard if they do not perform groundbreaking work. I was wrong to use the noun "institute" -- it can mean very different things. In some cases, it means independent institutions of significant heft like the Institute for Advanced Study, in other cases, the institute is a department or a major center in its own right like the Courant Institute, in yet other cases the word institute refers to little more than a peculiar administrative division inside some department. It was in this third sense that I referred to institutes as funding vehicles. Best, RayAYang (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Uncertain I am not sure how to evaluate this sort of inter-university research center. The two analogies given above do nt hold. IAS is an institution of its own, with a permanent campus, faculty, continuing existence, and true world-wide fame. Courant is also a separate body, though part of NYU, essentially notable as being one of the 3 or 4 top mathematics centers in the world. Even if regarded as an academic department, it's one of the exceptions that would qualify. In each case there are abundant references for the extremely high rank of the organisation. There are not such references here. There are merely a list of publication, and references from its own website and that of its sponsor. It is not a body with continuing existence--it is stated to be a particular 5-year grant. It has no physical building of its own--its more of a project than a research center. Not all the members of the project team are notable--6 hold Canada research chairs, which would certainly justify individual articles on them, and some have equivalent positions elsewhere, but about half of them are assistant professors or associate professors, whom we ordinarily do not consider notable. There productivity is not yet world-class, really: a symposium published as a book, a conference, a set of policy papers, a series of workshops, and some sponsored talks. (they also list a umber of books that, judging from their publication dates, were apparently written by members of the center before the project began). But their 5 year life span began in 2006, so perhaps they will become notable by the end of the project. I think such projects could possibly be notable, but it would take a good deal more than this to justify an article. DGG (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC) -- modified in view of the comments below, & on my talk page. DGG (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I have a few points of clarification before I respond:

The project does not have a building of its own, but it does have a block of offices at Queen's University and a permanent staff. The Major Collaborative Research Initiative grant was to found an independant organization to facilitate collaborative international research; it's not just funding vehicle.
Members of the project have in fact produced more than 100 publications through the collaboration that it has facilitated (the website is not up to date, and will be replaced later this year), but I have only included those publications that have been promoted as such. I have more to say about this below.
I may be mistaken, but my experience is that Wikipedia does not use full professorship as a necessary condition for the notability of an academic. The six assistant professors on the project are members because their upcoming research is promising, and they likely don't meet the criteria for notability yet, but all of the associate professors certainly do. It also seems odd to me to say that the collaboration of five Canada Research Chairs on one project is unremarkable.
The current grant is for five years, but is renewable for another seven years after that, and the Queen's members of the project hope to use it as a basis for a full research institute there in the future. I know that doesn't have much bearing on its current form, but I thought it was worth pointing out, since you mentioned the duration of the project as an issue.

Having said all that, I do recognize that this type of project doesn't seem to fit well with Wikipedia's current notability standard for organizations, but I don't think that alone is sufficient justification for deletion. Maybe the standard is unfairly biased towards a particular type of activity? The fact is that the nature of this kind of organization is such that its many accomplishments will almost always manifest themselves in the activities of its members. None of that activity would have been possible without the organization, but it is rarely attributed directly to the project itself (with the regular exception of publication acknowledgments, or the rare exceptions of the 'product of EDG' publications that I've cited in the article), even when members of the project are interviewed by media outlets (which happens fairly regularly, given that so many of them a specialists in hot topics like multiculturalism). There are a lot of projects like this that are an integral part of producing high-level academic research, and I think that there is a good case for including them (and not just this one) in Wikipedia. Evidence of their notability may have to be less direct than in other cases, but I think that is reasonable. As I mentioned above, the person who nominated this article for deletion helped to save a similar one that he created himself by arguing that while the Institute does not have many third-party references to indicate its notability, its activities are sufficiently demonstrative of that fact. – SJL 18:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Actually, all that is needed is articles about the project in professional magazines or journals, articles not based on the school's PR. Given what you describe, they may well be available. As you recognize. we really do like direct evidence. I went into the length I did because there are indeed many similar projects, and we have no really established criteria. It is very much easier showing the notability of such a project once it is finished and all the work is published and commented on, and citations to it are available. This article was at least introduced mid-way in the project, not at the very start as most such articles are (in which case they almsot always get deleted), so perhaps you wlll be able to find something. O'm sympathetic here, but the article needs further support. DGG (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking into it now. – SJL 03:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a newspaper article about the project to the 'References' section. – SJL 04:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My thoughts are similar to DGG's as expressed above. I'm familiar with MCRI projects, and doubt that any really warrant a Wikipedia article. However worthy, they are temporary and limited. The publications claimed for them are almost always inflated collations of research that would have been done anyway; that's certainly the case here, with the notion that since its inception the project has already generated 100 publications. One wouldn't expect to see significant publications directly generated by the project until near the end of its term, if not indeed after it has formally terminated. Should the project indeed lead to a full and permanent research institute, then I would be much more sympathetic to the notion that it was sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. (This is indeed the main difference from, say, the Peter Wall Institute, which is permanent and endowed.) It would be very surprising if any such project merited an article at this stage in its life, and I see no demonstration in the article itself that this particular project is exceptional in this way. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, the fact that you describe the research produced by MCRI projects as "inflated collations of research that would have been done anyway" suggests that you have no direct experience with them. I'm not going to labour this point, but I really have no idea where you are coming from. Together, the basic grant and the various contributions from participating institutions amount to $4-5 million, and that funding is contingent on collaborative research and publications, among other conditions. This has a significant impact on the activities of MCRI team members and their students, and a great deal 'gets done' that otherwise wouldn't.

Please don't accuse me of lying. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that you are lying. I said that your characterization of MCRI projects is inaccurate, and explained why. If you do have direct experience with a MCRI (as a member, workshop participant, etc.), though, I'd like to know which one matches your description. – SJL 18:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the longevity of MCRI projects, it is true that many disband after their term ends, but that is not always the case. The Globalization & Autonomy project, for example, served as the foundation for the Institute on Globalization and the Human Condition. Regardless, though, I don't understand why longevity would be relevant to notability in the first place. The fact that one organization is "permanent and endowed" may make it more notable than another that is not, but this does not entail that the latter lacks notability. Persistence is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. – SJL 18:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I'm aware that sometimes MCRIs are turned into permanent institutions. (For what it's worth, I happen to be good friends with one of the former directors of the McMaster project.) If that were to happen in this case, as I say, then things would change. I think it's fairly clear why a permanent center is likely to be more notable than a limited-term project. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be the case that a permanent centre is more notable than a limited-term project, but the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is notability, not relative notability. My argument is that some subjects that do not meet all of the current notability criteria can still be reasonably described as notable in a way that is consistent with the principle underlying that standard. – SJL 18:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with DGG's arguments about independent references, and am not convinced by what's there - one from the SSHRC, one from EDG itself, neither independent, and just one from a local newspaper - the link doesn't work, but even if it did I don't think it would amount to the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" required by the notability standard. I hear the defence's plea that the notability criteria may be biased against their kind of activity, but everyone wants to get into WP, we do have to have some kind of admission standard, and WP:N has been worked out over the years. JohnCD (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you are unable to access the article, but the link does work. There is no freely available version, so that link is to the permanent URL in the ProQuest archive (as requested, I have provided a description of the article's contents on the Ethnicity and Democratic Governance talk page).

Also, while I see where you are coming from when you say that the notability standard is necessary and is not arbitrary, I don't think that this is sufficient reason not to consider that the standard may prevent an accurate assessment of notability in cases like this. – SJL 18:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article has been improved, but the AfD talk may have to be held open to see what else can be done to fix this to be kept. Bearian (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2008 (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.