Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4th World Congress of Biotechnology


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 19:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

4th World Congress of Biotechnology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable event. Even if the group sponsoring this event is notable (which in this case, OMICS Publishing Group is notable, but notorious would probably be a better word), not every event held by the group is notable. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if the conference series as a whole were notable, the 2013 conference hasn't happened yet, is not notable on its own and is unlikely to become so. Dricherby (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * delete hasn't even happened and I doubt any coverage in mainstream press. LibStar (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  16:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  16:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Notorious certainly implies notable. Silicate minerals (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Struck comment of indef blocked sockpuppet. Dricherby (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. The notability of the organizing body does not automatically extend to individual events that it organizes. Dricherby (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Silicate minerals is an obvious sockpuppet of the community banned user Echigo mole. Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per above; also, as Dricherby said, "notorious" was referring to the company, not the event. (And in case you decide to mention it, I'm not following you around silicate, if you look at my contribs I've been on AfD quite a bit recently.) Ansh666 11:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment --- Since the conference has not been organized yet and no third party references are available,I feel article for already held conference can be created.Platyone (talk) 10:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was unable to find any sources for the World Conference of Biotechnology in general, let alone the first, second or third meeting in the series. Dricherby (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Perhaps better to start with an entry on the conference series more generally. I don't know if it's notable, but an established series of academic conferences is more likely to be notable than any one instance in the series.  As to whether this one is notable -- it's only the fourth, so not very long-standing.  --Lquilter (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, more SPAM from Omics, not notable, delete per WP:NOT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, More references to the past conferences has been added.Seems to be Notable due to its rotation per year.Paul2025 (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — Paul2025 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Struck comment of indef blocked probable sockpuppet of User:Scholarscentral. Dricherby (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The regular occurrence of the conference does not significantly add to its notability. The Arrow Media reference has to be considered questionable at best given the nature of Arrow Media (an online media / promotion site in service to the Indian tourism and hospitality industry, as defined on its About Us page).  The publication of results from the 3rd annual conference does not indicate any notability for the 4th conference.  There might be sufficient coverage for an article on the "World Conference on Biotechnology" taken as a series, noting significant results (if any) that have emerged from this series of conferences, but there is no need for articles on each individual occurrence of the series.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Would it be fine ,If a page for world congress on Biotechnology is created with existing references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul2025 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)   Struck comment of indef blocked probable sockpuppet of User:Scholarscentral Dricherby (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because the current sources for the article do not establish notability. Dricherby (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Based on existing references?  I'd say no.  (One man's opinion -- I'm not the final arbiter of these things.)  I do not believe that references that exist on the present version of the page are sufficient to establish notability.  I also note that the addition of two links ( and ) to basically the same article is somewhat disingenuous, making the article appear as if it had more real sources than it does.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment, Thanks for your reply, I will search if I could find any third party references for World congress on Biotechnology and will create a page if sufficient references other than the above references are available..Paul2025 (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment, Please do let me know whether the following references can be used to create a page titled World Congress on Biotechnology


 * http://lite.epaper.timesofindia.com/mobile.aspx?article=yes&pageid=28&edlabel=TOIH&mydateHid=24-12-2011&pubname=&edname=&articleid=Ar02800&format=&publabel=TOI




 * http://www.mdlinx.com/pediatrics/conference-details.cfm/22333/2nd-World-Congress-on-Biotechnology-2011-philadelphia-Pennsylvania/




 * I feel since 1st,2nd and 3rd conference references are available, we can create World Congress on Biotechnology main page including all the other conferences as subtopics under the main title.


 * Please help me out, whether this can be done or not... Paul2025 (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Struck comment of indef blocked probable sockpuppet of User:Scholarscentral. Dricherby (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RS carefully before suggesting any more sources. Notability requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources (plural). omicsonline.org is the conference organizer so is not independent and does not establish notability. The mdlinkx.com link is just an announcement: it is WP:ROUTINE coverage, which is not significant so does not establish notability. I wasn't able to read the Times of India article as it's behind a paywall: perhaps somebody who has access to it can confirm whether it is relevant. Note, however, that WP:NOTABILITY requires more than one source to establish notability so, even if the Times of India is suitable, we still need more. Dricherby (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Possible we can create a page for the series, but it requires more than proof its existence or the presence of publicity for it--especially when the publicity comes from the sponsor of the conference or the publisher of its proceedings. I'm not sure how to propose formal criteria, but the principle should be, as everywhere, that the series generally recognized in the field as major should have articles. Individual conferences are another matter--some very few of them are notable, and the presumption should be that they are not unless there's good evidence otherwise. For individual conferences that have not yet been held, I personally incline towards deleting as G11, becaue the purposeof such articles is always that of obtaining additional publicity for them, by those trying to treat WPas a medium for advertising.  DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 4 May 2013 (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.