Talk:Nordic Society for Middle Eastern Studies
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
[Untitled][edit]
Responding quickly to the main multiple issues: I think the citations given are adequate for verification. For notability, this is one of the main learned societies in its field and the only one covering the Nordic region, so it is clearly notable. I have no conflict of interest, whatever my new username suggests--I chose that name simply because I wanted to do this article and couldn't remember the password for my old user name! NordicSoc (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- @NordicSoc: Good to know about the conflict. I'll take that tag off. You should probably request to change your username, since we don't allow usernames that look like they belong to an organization instead of a person. As far as citations, it's still not quite enough because we only have citations to the organization's website. To make sure that the article meets the general notability guideline, it would be good to have references to sources that aren't related to the society. If there aren't any, then it's trickier to say that it's notable. agtx 19:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- For notability: this is the Nordic equivalent of https://en.luquay.com/wiki/Middle_East_Studies_Association_of_North_America. Of course, MESA is more notable because North America is bigger than the Nordic region, but otherwise there is no significant difference. If MESA is notable, and if the Nordic region is notable, then the Nordic Society for Middle Eastern Studies is also notable.
TX2016Z (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Notability and sources[edit]
I've added some additional sources that should take care of the unreferenced tag. As far as notability goes, I do not believe that this article has a notability problem. I know that WP:PROF is designed for people, but the same logic that applies there—that notable scholarly topics don't necessarily have the same kind of secondary source coverage as other more general topics—applies here. Papers from the conferences are regularly published and cited in the field. That should be enough here, but I'm happy to talk about it further here or at a deletion discussion if others think it's not enough. agtx 16:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)