Wiki143:Articles for deletion/CSA Trust

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The result was Keep : concerns about sourcing have been eliminated, nomination withdrawn. --Haemo 01:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

CSA Trust

Template:La – (View log)

This trust does not meet notability standards. Third party references are lacking. Relevant Google hits are few. Verification is spotty at best. Seems to be an obscure organization in a specialized branch of chemistry. Realkyhick 23:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Uupate: Reliable sources have now been provided, and notability does appear to be established within the subject's field — a narrow field, admittedly, but still notable. Nomination is withdrawn, closure requested. Realkyhick 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment My initial impulse, to see if this could be merged with a Chemical Structure Association article, led to finding that the parent merged with the trust a few years ago so they are one and the same. The group seems to be a UK-based, but internationally-active, analogue of an interest group within the American Chemical Society, so it isn't an equal of the ACS in significance nor is it a peer national group. I'm inclined to think that its grant-making and conference-organizing activities have some significance but it's difficult to determine how much without third-party sources. --Dhartung | Talk 01:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • And that's the problem. This may indeed be a notable organization, albeit within a narrow niche, but there simply aren't any reliable sources cited for verification. Realkyhick 03:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 01:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.Harlowraman 03:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The equivalent of the American Chemical Society is the Royal Society of Chemistry. This group is more specialized. Did the nom think to notify the Chemistry Workgroup? Why should the rest of us go guessing when there are people here who might actually know if its notable, & if so where sources might be?DGG (talk)
  • How do we go about notifying them? Could you handle that? Realkyhick 22:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:RS. ¿SFGiДnts!

WP:RS says "Reliable sources are authors or publications ...". Author of this article is Prof. David Wild - a professor of chemical informatics writing about a chemical informatics organization. I would say that his fulfills WP's "reliable sources" definition. --Steinbeck 15:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Yes, it is a specialist branch of chemistry. Why is that an argument to delete? It is an up and coming area of chemistry. The Sheffield Conferences are important conferences. Within that new area of chemistry, this is not obscure. This article gives valuable knowledge about an organisation that is playing an important role in this relatively new area of chemical knowledge. It needs more references. It needs improving. It would not however improve Wikipedia in any way to delete this. --Bduke 10:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's hard to argue that a chemical society featured in Chemistry International, that receives financial support from the likes of Pfizer, Unilever and Zeneca and organises two significant series of conferences is non-notable. The article as it currently stands contains references to completely reliable sources that show this (e.g. ref. 5). What could be gained by removal? Andreww 14:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete seems non-notable by our normal criteria. It gives a bit of money away and has some corporate sponsors, but then so does my village festival! Chemistry International is not a widely read (or quoted) publication. I don't wish to disparage the work of this organization, nor prevent an article being written if its activities expand (as its trustees surely hope they do) but neither would I want to keep an article simply because it is in a field in which I'm interested. A second time round, my vote may well be different but, for the moment, no. Physchim62 (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Chemistry International may not be widely read, but as the news magazine of IUPAC, its contents have real notability. I am surprised you do not think its activities are not already large enough. --Bduke 22:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm commenting in my role as chairman of the Chemistry-Information-Computers (CIC) division of the German Chemical Society (GDCh) (You asked for authorities, that why I mention this). The CSA Trust has played an important role in the last 20 years to shape the novel field of Chemoinformatics by organizing chemoinformatics conferences, helping students to travel and by providing training in the field. It it recognized as an important, small but fine organization by us (the German Chemical Society) as well as the RSC and ACS (see above). A number of the about 30 trustees are world-renowned scientists in pharmaceutical chemo- and bioinformatics. The work of the Trust has to help science, not to promote itself. That may be a reason for your problems of finding references. There are numerous accounts of CSA Trust's work through its name being part of joint symposia. What I don't understand is the following: Assume that the CSA Trust is less important than, say, Pyschim62's village festival, so what? If only two people in the world want to learn about either the village festival or the CSA Trust through looking at their Wikipedia article, the existence of these articles is justified. The Trust's work, however, has been witnessed and recognized by more than 20.000 people over the 20 years of it's existence. Let me know if I can help providing more evidence of importance. Would links from ACS and GDCH divisional pages to the CSA Trust pages help? Steinbeck 19:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Links for ACS and other Socities would certainly help if they establish notability. --Bduke 22:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: No, only two people looking for an article about a subject does not justify the article's existence. If that were the case, we would have articles about pretty much every living person, every organization, every structure, and so on. Our standard response for "so-and-so's article exists, why shouldn't mine?" is expressed on this page: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Having said all of that, the trust may well meet our notability standards, but we have to have some citations from reliable souces so that we can verify this. It's much like what you would have to have in an established journal. These standards are designed to give Wikipedia as a whole a measure of credibility, which is a tough-enough task given its open nature. Realkyhick 21:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There are more than 2 chemists in the world, so I dont know where you got that figure from. Chemical structure nomenclature is a basic part of chemistry, & I think there's enough material here to show that they're important in the field. DGG (talk) 04:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The CSA trust is also discussed in (a) Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling 1998, 16 (1): 48-54. (b) Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences 1994, 34 (1): 1-2. (c) Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 1989, 5 (2): 101-102. (d) Chemistry in Britain 1984, 20 (5): 404-404. These journals are published by Elsevier, the American Chemical Society, Elsevier, and the Royal Society of Chemistry, respectively. The last of these (now renamed ChemistryWorld) has a monthly circulation of over forty thousand, and so may be considered widely read. Jmg11 17:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: If you could add these refs to the main article, especially those with a link available online, I think that might be enough in the way of reliable sources, and I'll likely withdraw this nomination. Thanks! Realkyhick 18:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've added the four additional references in the appropriate location. Andreww 17:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Good job! I have withdrawn the nomination, as there are now sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. Realkyhick 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep From WP:N Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". This group has external references, and in my opinion this topic both asserts notability and is notable. Antelan ^talk 17:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep : This article is within the guidelines of WP:N and WP:ORG. JoJan 05:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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.