Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Scientific Council on the Developing Child

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 no consensus. Sandstein 10:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Scientific Council on the Developing Child

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

Lack of coverage in independent secondary sources. Geogene (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hum. This is a tricky one. On the one hand there doesn't appear to be a whole lot of coverage in secondary sources, but then there isn't nothing either. There is the UNESCO publication mentioned on the page, there are other mentions in other publications, books etc. On the other hand it appears to be a center for academics in the area based at Harvard, I'm not sure that it has a whole lot of wider importance outside of the narrow expert field it works in. I don't really know how to assess the notability. People attached to it have appeared in the popular media as spokespeople, I suppose by that measure it is notable enough to be a thing. 20:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)JMWt (talk)

I think this is pretty straightforward. I don't consider the brief mention in the UNESCO document to be secondary, because it cites NSCDC 2007, which is most likely a press release or the organization's website. I have not checked up on the authors to see if they are members of NSCDC, but if some of them are, then that would definitely make that a primary source because then they would be writing about their own research group. I don't doubt that a group of academics calls themselves this, and that they have a website hosted on a Harvard server. But it fails the notability standards because there are no independent sources about the group. The idea here is to write an article, not a dictionary or directory entry, and to do that without engaging in original research. There's not enough out there to do that. Geogene (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. I wouldn't say it is "straightforward", but generally agree that there isn't any secondary sources about the council (rather than referencing it) that I can find. JMWt (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles need to be based on indepdent, scholarly sources which are lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm getting 31 hits for the group's name at Newspapers.com, all paywalled. Apparently a publisher of academic monographs based at Harvard. 14K hits on Google for "(the name of the group) + Harvard." THIS article in The Atlantic makes use of the chair of NSCDC as an expert in his field. Wikipedia would be weakened by the deletion, in my estimation, so I advise Keep under the policy of Ignore All Rules. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:28, 20 September 2017 (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.