Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of European Rarities Committees

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Association of European Rarities Committees

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

fails WP:ORG, lacks third party coverage [1], despite article existing for over 4 years with no real improvement...I'm thinking due to lack of sources. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This feels like inappropriate use of the Google Test. The vast majority (30 out of about 33?) of the countries covered by AERC are not English-speaking, and so relevant publications will not feature in a search of English-language news sources. In addition, the publications of ornithological organisations in AERC countries are in the main not available on the internet. I know that the British sources found by Google are a fraction of the mentions of the organisation in the British ornithological literature, and if we extrapolate that across all countries, even allowing for reduced coverage in Eastern Europe, say, we've still got significant coverage in 3rd-party sources. This subject probably doesn't fail WP:ORG therefore. SP-KP (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

provide evidence of significant third party coverage then. LibStar (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps ask that in a slightly less agressive way? SP-KP (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hardly an aggressive way, the best way to save an article from deletion is to provide sources establishing notability. I'll happily withdraw the nomination if anyone can find substantial third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since my last edit, I've just quickly pulled a selection of European ornithological journals off my shelves and had a flick through. In Dutch Birding, I quickly found three mentions of AERC in a single volume (six issues). In Alula, a Finnish journal, I found two mentions within two volumes (eight issues). In one volume (12 issues) of Birding World, a British journal, I found two mentions. If I can find that many mentions in fifteen minutes, in just three journals, I'm struggling to see how we can regard AERC as an organisation with limited third-party coverage. If you want to verify this, try asking at WP:BIRD for a second opinion. SP-KP (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

simply having mentions may not be enough. indepth coverage is preferred as per WP:GNG, "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." LibStar (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have used a better word than "mentions". To give you some examples of the type of coverage I found above, one item was about the establishment by AERC of a pan-European policy on national ornithological list categories and noted how this had been adopted by a number of national rarities committees, a few of the items reported on cross-European co-operation on taxonomic decision-making, co-ordinated by AERC through its Taxonomic Advisory Committee, and the recommendations that were being made as a result of that co-operation. So, not just trivial or mention-in-passing coverage, which is perhaps the impression I gave. Hope that helps? SP-KP (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep googling is the tip of the iceberg. notable. Will see what we can do about sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fifteen sources from British Birds now listed at Talk:Association of European Rarities Committees. SP-KP (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep non internet notability. Agathoclea (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Who would've thought, there's a world beyond Google! Thanks to SP-KP for finding sources; could I prevail on you to work them into the article? I think this is an example of how getting opinions from subject experts can be a good idea before we consider deleting an article. Fences&Windows 01:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Decent, simple, English-language reference for an organization with 15+ years of history. --AStanhope (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - important in ornithology. Snowman (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to SP-KP proving it was a notable association. Dream Focus 11:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clear case where Google-fu is insufficient. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:14, 15 September 2009 (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.