Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists

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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I've declined a speedy deletion request on this, as given the number of editors who've worked on it without raising concerns, I don't feel deletion would be wholly uncontroversial. However, this is clearly not appropriate for Wikipedia and is never going to be—even if sources could be found, the article would need to be completely gutted to the extent that it would be easier to rewrite from scratch. ‑ Iridescent 06:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Environment. ‑ Iridescent 06:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as CSD tagger; the article has never cited any independent, in-depth coverage (or anything other than the organization's website) since its creation by a COI editor in 2009, and reads like it belongs on said website not on an encyclopedia. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This seems to be copied from a variety of sources, see Earwig. VickKiang (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: Previous versions might not be eligible for G12 but IMO at minimum this needs revdelling. Even the oldest version has many copyvios apparently. VickKiang (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing it. The page Earwig is flagging is years newer; this appears to be someone copying Wikipedia, not the other way around. Unless a page is brand new, Earwig is a useless tool. ‑ Iridescent 15:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: Good catch, apologies for my mistake. However, the latest version links to this booklet which is from its own website. Could the association also be copying from Wikipedia as well? Otherwise, it is a copyvio in the unlikely case this is kept it might need to be revdeled.

Otherwise, this is a obviously promotional article with a clear WP:COI and my search only found trivial mentions or routine announcements, 1, 2, so with CSD out of the way I am at delete. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also P.S. I don't think this Springer article and their own association page would copy from Wikipedia, but it would be quite dishonest for this association if they copy our article... but with or without copyvios this is a non-notable WP:TNT deserving mess IMO. Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given who the creator is it's entirely plausible that they wrote the text and posted it to both Wikipedia and their own website, for instance. This doesn't look like an unambiguous enough copyvio for G12, although it might be worth sending to WP:CP should this AfD (by some miracle) be closed as keep. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tried to find any independent sources, nothing really notable found. Looked at history of article and COI editor, would agree it doesn’t belong here. Equine-man (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and what I see on the Internet - an article could be created on the generic topic, but not the association. I found few sources about the group but many on the topic. I would not oppose a move and re-write. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 23 November 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.