Aid Worker Security Database: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:43, 30 April 2020

Revision as of 23:43, 30 April 2020

Line 1:

{{AFC submission|||u=HumOutcomes|ns=118|ts=20200128133823}} <!-- Do not remove this line! -->

{{AFC submission|d|reason|<!-- Template:Talkspin -->

This draft is a request to [[WP:SPINOUT|spin out]] an article, a form of [[WP:SPLIT|splitting]]. Proposals to spin out a topic from an article into another stand-alone article should be discussed at the talk page of the existing article.

This does not mean that the draft should be spun out, and it does not mean that the draft should not be spun out. It does mean that discussion should be on the talk page of the existing article. (If this draft is resubmitted without discussion on the talk page of the existing article, it may be Rejected or [[WP:MFD|nominated for deletion]].) Discuss at [[Talk:Attacks on humanitarian workers]]. Spinning out an article should reflect a rough consensus at the parent article talk page.|u=HumOutcomes|ns=118|decliner=Robert McClenon|declinets=20200117064746|reason2=mergeto|details2=Attacks on humanitarian workers|ts=20191205150112}} <!-- Do not remove this line! -->

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

{{AFC comment|1=Since my initial comment 6 months ago, I see a number of references have been added. Looking over them, most appear to either be documents from the UN or what look like passing mentions from government reports.

It was suggested by [[User:Worldbruce]] that [[WP:NWEB]] is the appropriate guideline to use for judging notability here. I'm not 100% sure that's correct, [[WP:NGO]] might be more appropriate. In any case, please look at those two, and also read [[WP:THREE]]. If you could list here in the comments the three best sources which establish this meets either of those guidelines, that would be a great help to the next person who reviews this. -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 16:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC).

PS, the NY Times piece I noted earlier is clearly the best, so two more in addition to that. -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 16:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)}}

{{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.

Clearly, the NY Times article ("Attacks on Aid Workers Jump Worldwide, Group Says") is an excellent source, but it's the only one I see that is [[WP:RELIABLE]], [[WP:SECONDARY]], and [[WP:INDEPENDENT]]. My own searching comes up with lots of citations of the database, but just like those in the "Media Citations" section, they're basically just passing mentions.

If there were one or two more references of the quality of the NY Times piece, I'd say this is clearly something we should accept into mainspace. As it is, however, I have my doubts that it would survive [[WP:AfD]]. -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 20:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)}}

----

{{Draft article}}

<br />

<!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --><br />

The Aid Worker Security Database (AWSD) is a project of the international research group, Humanitarian Outcomes. Funded by [[United States Agency for International Development|USAID]], it records major incidents from 1997 to present, of [[Attacks on humanitarian workers|attacks on humanitarian workers worldwide]]. As cited in the [[The New York Times|New York Times]], “it is widely regarded as an authoritative reference for aid organisations and governments in assessing trends in security threats.”<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/world/asia/attacks-on-aid-workers-jump-worldwide-group-says.html|title=Attacks on Aid Workers Jump Worldwide, Group Says|last=Gladstone|first=Rick|date=2014-08-18|work=The New York Times|access-date=2019-06-27|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> Since its inception in 2005 as the first fully comprehensive compilation of this data, the AWSD has been a source of quantitative evidence on matters related to the security of humanitarian operations in conflict, referenced in policy debates and cited in official [[United Nations]] statements<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.unocha.org/sites/unocha/files/statement-and-speech/USG-ERC%20OBrien%20remarks%20at%20High-Level%20Panel%20on%20Reaching%20people%20in%20need%20%20_ECOSOC_HAS.pdf|title=United Nations Remarks at the ECOSOC Humanitarian Affairs Segment High-Level Panel|last=O'Brien|first=Stephen|date=June 22, 2017|website=United Nations|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=}}</ref>, [[United Nations General Assembly]] resolutions<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/72/131|title=Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 11 December 2017|last=|first=|date=January 15, 2018|website=United Nations General Assembly|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=}}</ref>, [[United Nations Security Council]] documents<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/S/2014/571|title=Letter dated 5 August 2014 from the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General|last=Grant|first=Mark Lyall|date=August 6, 2014|website=United Nations Security Council|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=}}</ref>, and reports of the [[Secretary-General of the United Nations]]<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/N1829672.pdf|title=Safety and security of humanitarian personnel and protection of United Nations personnel|last=Report of the Secretary-General|date=September 24, 2018|website=United Nations Secretary General|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=}}</ref>.

Line 96 ⟶ 70:

* [https://aidworkersecurity.org/ Official website]

* [https://www.humanitarianoutcomes.org/ Humanitarian Outcomes website]

[[Category:Database]]