Aid Worker Security Database: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:36, 26 September 2019

Revision as of 00:06, 23 October 2019

Line 1:

{{AFC submission|td|web|u=HumOutcomes|ns=118|demo=|decliner=Worldbruce|declinets=20191023000651|ts=20190627181826}} <!-- Do not remove this line! -->

{{AFC submission|||u=HumOutcomes|ns=2|ts=20190627150114}} <!-- Do not remove this line! -->

{{AFC comment|1=The subject-specific guideline that applies is [[WP:NWEB]]. The draft's lead says that according to ''The New York Times'', the database "is widely regarded as an authoritative reference for aid organisations and governments in assessing trends in security threats." Reliable sources frequently cite the database in its subject area, so I think the ''NYT'' is right. But my reading of [[WP:WEBCRIT]] is that web notability is not demonstrated by the database being cited frequently (unlike the guidelines for [[WP:PROF|academics]] and for [[WP:NMEDIA|newspapers, magazines, and academic journals]]). Instead, the database itself needs to be the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial works.

:Examples of databases with such coverage include: [[Astrophysics Data System]], [[Combined DNA Index System|CODIS]], and [[ContactPoint]]. Wikipedia articles about web databases should not only describe the nature of the data they contain, but should describe them in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on the database's achievements, impact or historical significance. The sort of coverage that would help would be an article about how an organization changed its behaviour because of the database, and thereby had some significant effect, perhaps improving aid worker security but worsening whatever woe the organization combats. [[User:Worldbruce|Worldbruce]] ([[User talk:Worldbruce|talk]]) 00:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)}}

{{AFC comment|1=I'm on the fence about this. Most of the references are first-party, i.e. to the Humanitarian Outcomes and/or the database's own web sites.