Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Conference on Game Theory at Stony Brook


 * 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. ✗ plicit  03:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

International Conference on Game Theory at Stony Brook

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

Subtopic of Stony Brook Center for Game Theory, itself a (presumably non-notable) subtopic of Stony Brook University. Contains no independent sources and a WP:BEFORE turns up nothing. (To save anyone inclined to investigate the trouble, the NPP reviewer who approved this has already had the permission yanked, although it's certainly possible that other pages they approved need AfDing.) &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Time to close the browser tabs where I was looking into this... It's a conference. Yep, sure held some meetings, that they did. I was unable to find enough about the history of it to suggest that writing that history would be interesting or worthwhile. Does it add to the meaning that a paper gives a reader if the reader sees that the research was presented at the ICGTSB? Not that I can tell. It can be hard to document academic activities like conferences, legitimate-but-niche journals, etc. But the rarity of documentation doesn't mean we should lower our standards; it just means that we often can't write about those things. Too bad, in a way, but so it goes. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2022 (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.