Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Joyous! Noise! 22:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Does not reach the notability standard; WP:GNG. I found no widespread evidence of significant coverage by WP:RS. Most sources are primary, with a direct connection to the subject, or exclusively local. It reads as a promotional showcase to a minor college program. GuardianH (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Mathematics,  and Massachusetts.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Really seems to me that this should have been bundled with the nomination of David Kelly, as the two are almost inextricably linked. Here are some sources not present in either article:
 * AMS Notices, more than one full paragraph devoted to discussing HCSSiM
 * Passing mention in a book about Paul Erdos
 * Post at the AMS Blogs about HCSSiM (note that AMS blogs are similar to the blogs described at WP:NEWSBLOG; they have a legitimate editorial process)
 * fluffy coverage of Kelly in the Riverside Press-Enterprise
 * versions of the article about speed limits were published moderately widely (e.g. in the Boston Globe
 * more AMS stuff
 * --JBL (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi! I am an alumna of the program in question. I'm 100% new to editing wikipedia, so please pardon my lack of knowledge about how everything works.
 * I agree the article is inadequately sourced, and would be more than happy to try to find better sources for lots of it, but I wanted to check first what kinds of sources are allowed. I have read WP:NOR and understand that sources should be secondary or tertiary sources, but am unsure what kinds of sources qualify as such.
 * For example, does this letter to the editor (page 2 of the pdf, from Susan Landau) qualify as a secondary source? Or this one?
 * Also, there is a documentary being made about the program. When that gets published, will it be a secondary source or a primary source? With-High-Probability (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * (To clarify since I can't figure out how to edit - the second post I linked is self-published, but it is by a mathematician and mathematics educator, which means it's a subject matter expert AIUI.) With-High-Probability (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A documentary could be primary or secondary depending on the details. For example, if it has footage of someone involved with the program being interviewed as a "talking head", then I'd call that a primary source for the person's own statements. What I'd look for is whether the program itself had editorial control over the documentary, i.e., whether the documentary is independent. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I found both the sources you mention (Susan Landau's letter and Jim Propp's blog post) but decided not to include them in my list as indica of notability; I think they could be used cautiously as sources if the article is kept. (Landau's letter could perhaps be used to support inclusion of people on a list of alums, for example.)  --JBL (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are by now many other summer mathematics research programs for bright high school students, but this appears to be the one that started them all. I think there is enough coverage for GNG as linked above. For another hard-to-Google but in-depth and reliably published source, there's Susan Landau's "How I spend my summer vacations", AWM Newsletter 11(6), 1981, pp. 8-9, https://www.drivehq.com/folder/p8755087/1748723574.aspx . However, I don't think Kelly has independent notability from this program, so my opinion on his AfD was to redirect here. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I think we have enough to justify an article. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I'm seeing steady (if slightly low-wattage) coverage over the years by the AMS, e.g. in the Notices, and other sources. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I think I'm convinced there's enough independent sourcing here to write a verifiable article of acceptable quality. --JBL (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - per sources from JBL and per reasoning of David Eppstein. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2023 (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.