Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BIS conference


 * 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

BIS conference

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm unsure if there are any specific notability guidelines for academic conferences, but I am unable to find any independent coverage of this one which would indicate that WP:GNG is met. The article creator appears to have a major conflict of interest: Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard SmartSE (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm unable to make a strong case for or against deleting this but, despite suspected COI, there don't appear to be any serious WP:NPOV issues in this short article. ~Kvng (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting that was a reason for deletion, more a reason for it to be created in the first place, rather than because it is a particularly well known conference. SmartSE (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , we don't delete articles on notable topics just because they were created by COI editors. There are likely a lot of better-known conferences without a Wikipedia article but that does not justify deleting this one. ~Kvng (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Huh? I know and that's exactly what I said! The question is whether it meets GNG. SmartSE (talk) 08:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , like you, I don't have much experience evaluating this beyond WP:EXISTS. So I haven't !voted. ~Kvng (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Does anyone else have any comments?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Significant copyvio from the conference website (their self-description from 2015 was added here in 2018). The content that wasn't lifted runs into the "Wikipedia is not a directory or catalogue" problem: basically all that's left is the list of annual meetings, and that's not an encyclopedia article. I have not turned up any substantial third-party coverage of the conferences in amidst the publications of things that had been presented there. That's not an atypical situation for conferences, book series, niche publishers, etc., but those subjects don't get a special exemption &mdash; it just means they face an uphill path to wiki-notability. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know if this article must be deleted or not! A scientific conference from 1997 by notable publisher (Springer) is interesting, but to have a Wikipedia article, the article topic must pass the WP:GNG. Charmk (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2020 (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.