Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Association of Economics Education: Difference between revisions

Global Association of Economics Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article has to be considered to be problematic. The original and key contributor would seem to be one of listed key people, so we have what appears to be an undeclared conflict of interest—I expect the ED.

The references are not reliable, many are blackhat SEO type references, and many seem to be paid featured articles. I see no independent quality references. The entire article is an attempt to seem to be important and to baffle with false credibility. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further note, the aforementioned contributor who I accused of having a conflict of interest is the same contributor listed as uploading the image used, for which an OTRS permission exists. I will be asking the Commons OTRS to comment about this CoI aspect of this matter. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A public AfD discussion is not the correct place to make allegations of COI based on personal suspicion or guesswork. The request related to this AfD raised at c:User_talk:Krd#File:Global_Association_of_Economics_Education_Logo.png appears to be in direct conflict with WP:OUTING, in particular Editors are warned, however, that the community has rejected the idea that editors should "investigate" each other. Posting such information on Wikipedia violates this policy, a policy that applies to all contributors. Posting on Wikimedia Commons does not by-pass the policy, nor does it make breaking it any less serious.

Please consider rewriting the nomination to focus on the article, rather than user accounts. --Fæ (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything to add regarding the CoI allegations, but I think a case could be made for deletion, given that the organization makes very weak claims of notability, even before considering the reliability of the cited sources. For example, attaining state and federal tax-exempt status and meeting a comprehensive non-profit directory's transparency standards don't make the organization notable per se. The "formal association" with UNDGC would need to be explained further for it to be a statement of notability. (The same would hold true for the translation at the Vietnamese Wikipedia.) – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 20:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was a volunteer for this organization last Fall so my opinion might be biased. Nevertheless, I believe GAEE satisfies the notability standard of Wikipedia. It is a CSO Partner and an NGO recognized by the UN's Economic and Social Council, which is quite significant for any civil society nonprofit, especially a fully youth-led one. This organization is also recognized as a strategic partner with AIESEC (I believe someone already mentioned it in the article) and listed in the Research Paper in Economics (RePEc) database of St. Louis FED. I am not a professional in terms of SEO links, but I don't see any references that are blackhat or illegal. I agree some of the references may be quite promotional, but instead of right away deleting an article about a legitimate organization (that operated in 8 countries), I believe Wikipedia has other templates like "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral" and "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement" so someone can improve it in the future. I don't quite understand the hostility towards a youth organization here and would like to provide any insights, despite potentially biased, that may be helpful for the administrators and editors in improving this article. --38.140.158.106 (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]