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 merge to Localisation (humanitarian practice). Sandstein 10:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interrogating the evidence base on humanitarian localisation[edit]

Interrogating the evidence base on humanitarian localisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I don't see any indication of this 2021 report passing WP:GNG. MarioGom (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hi, I wrote the article, so as you might expect, I think it should stay on Wikipedia. My reasons are that it meets GNG, it's a notable publication that is widely cited in authoritative academic literature. Every sentence of the synopsis is cited secondary high quality academic sources, and I've quoted various high quality, independent, secondary sources that cite it:

1. This paper from La Trobe University
2. This paper from Conflict Sensitivity Resource Facility
3. It's cited dozens of times on this report from Tufts University to the point where it was probably the main source and influence for the whole publication
4. This publication is from the same publisher, but different authors, so you could maybe argue it either way.
5. This report from N.E.S.T.A.
6. Since the AfD started, I added another citation from the Centre for Humanitarian Leadership I had missed it first as they spell localisation with a "z".

I wouldn't just say it's notable, it's a meta analysis of every paper that's been published on Localisation (humanitarian practice), probably the most important publication on the topic. I recognize that humanitarian topics are not well covered in wikipedia, but this is a very important document in the decolonisation of humanitarian aid and it absolutely deserves to be on Wikipedia, in my humble opinion.

I see very little activity at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_Development sadly, and yet they are the group who I think would most likely see it like me, I hate how humanitarian and international development stuff is so absent here, if anyone can do the thing where we fairly let people know without trying to bias the result, they should be aware that this is up for deletion, I think. But as I note the last time a AfD was discussed there it was me who proposed deletion and nobody replied or acted, so <throws up hands in despair> lol CT55555 (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add them in, because I'm not sure if it counted or not, but some extra websites that spoke of the publication are:

Save The Children here

The Red Cross here

Google Scholar tells me it's quoted in Hugo Slim's 2022 book, but I don't know how much, so didn't add: Slim, Hugo. Solferino 21: Warfare, Civilians and Humanitarians in the Twenty-First Century. Hurst Publishers, 2022.

Google scholar suggests it's quoted here, but again I don't have access https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/%E2%80%98As-local-as-possible%2C-as-international-as-Wilkinson/82b4a174675c7f23ccb8caf1fd421a607e771e7c

And the paper itself is academically published here DOI:10.1080/01436597.2021.1890994 CT55555 (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I checked in here today, I thought a decision would be made by now and ended up reading the policies...I found myself here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(published_works), specifically the General Criteria for published works and also the criteria for academic works, both which seem somewhat relevant. The more I read them, the more it seems very clear to me that this publication is very specifically meeting the criteria. It is the subject of multiple, non trivial publications that are independent of the source, it is influential within its area of influence. I hope the final decision on this will follow the guidance on notability for published works. CT55555 (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS I think I added this comment at exactly the same time that Extraordinary Writ relisted it. Sorry for any confusion. CT55555 (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into a section of Overseas Development Institute. It's very rare for an individual paper/report to have a stand-alone article, and rarer still when there's an obvious home for material about the report (like an article about the entity that produced it). For a stand-alone article, we need more than just citations, which is largely what these sources are. We need in depth coverage of the report itself, and preferably published in peer reviewed publications. The bar is relatively high, in other words. Think, like, Two Dogmas of Empiricism level of significance. Otherwise a good report is, well, a good source to cite on Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rhododendrites I delayed replying, hope more people would comment. Naturally, I'd prefer a merge than a delete. But here's an attempt to persuade you: I recognise the point you are making, but this is more than just citations. Indeed most of the sources here are just a citations, but if you consider the Tuff's report, it's a major influence for the whole paper. OK, so it's not formally peer reviewed, but it's published by a university, so it probably literally is peer reviewed. The quality of the other thinking that this has influenced is really quite high. So I think nobody could argue that it's rare for a report to have a stand alone article, but I say this report is that rare exception, it's a meta analysis of all of the thinking on the topic, it's important.

And if I didn't persuade you against the merge, I would say that the ODI page is indeed a suitable home for this, but I don't think people go to the ODI page to learn about localisation, so maybe (and maybe not, this is a suggestion) Localisation_(humanitarian_practice) would be the more logical merge to? CT55555 (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It still does not strike me as enough coverage of the subject to overcome a merge, but I'd be curious what others think, too. As for where it should be merged, there are actually two questions built in: where should the content go, and where should this article title redirect a reader. It sounds like it makes sense to add some content about it to the localisation article in addition to the ODI article, but as for where the report title points to (where it redirects), I'm still inclined to point to the entity that produced the report, which in turn could link to the localisation article. If this report were the basis of the whole concept of localisation, such that it were inextricable from that subject, then that might work as a redirect, but it would be unusual. Some of these questions are a matter of style/consistency. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the specific point of the redirect, I agree on the style/consistency point. I think if merge is the consensus (I don't support that consensus) then the ODI page could do with a paragraph on this and the localisation page could do with a section on this report, or something of that quantity. Relisted for the second time, but alas Wikipedia seems to have low interest for humanitarian stuff, which ironically is why created this article. lol CT55555 (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Localisation (humanitarian organizations). There's nothing in the routine citations above to suggest that the report is notable, but the rather that the underlying practice being discussed is. On the other hand, the content here is relevant to a meaningful and high-profile practice within multiple humanitarian organizations, which meets GNG.--Carwil (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of others, I'm sure you mean Localisation (humanitarian practice) CT55555 (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, didn't realize that was blue link. Thanks! Carwil (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's see if more input helps
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Added a couple more deletion sorting categories to see if we can get a bit more input. You could also leave notices at relevant WikiProject pages (as long as those notices are neutral pointers, of course). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you, I had hoped someone would do that, I don't know how to do it, and the only WikiProject I know if that may be interested is International Development which seems very stagnant, I once raised an AfD there and got nothing and nobody ever raised one since. I'll think if there are any other places I could seek input from, of course would only do that neutrally. CT55555 (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Localisation (humanitarian practice). One needs to differentiate between the issues the report covers and the report itself. I do not see WP:NBOOK being met here. To take the Save the Children source, this is an archive listing, it is not a discussion or analysis of the report. The report is being cited by others for its examination of an issue, which is different than being cited for the report's effect. A concrete way to illustrate this difference would be the Beveridge Report; that report is famously notable for its policy and legal effects; indicating that a report is cited by others within the same academic sphere is not enough to indicate the policy and/or legal effects of the report (which would be appropriate criteria in this case). FWIW, as far as I can see, we don't even have a stand-alone article for Einstein's paper on mass-energy equivalence (although we do have one on his proof of the existence of atoms). No doubt this report is useful in establishing the notability of the topic it examines, but there is no clear sourcing that the report itself is notable. I hope the distinction I'm making is clear. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The content of the report should be discussed in the context of its subject, but the report isn't notable on its own. It's great that it's been cited, but that's not about the report itself. Its findings can be discussed in Localisation (humanitarian practice). Reywas92^Talk 01:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Localisation (humanitarian practice) and possibly a little at Overseas Development Institute.Gusfriend (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Localisation (humanitarian practice). It's a great source, and our readers would benefit from its insights. No evidence it's notable on it own. Femke (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2022 (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.