Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International conference on Computer Simulation of Radiation Effects in Solids


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

International conference on Computer Simulation of Radiation Effects in Solids

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This seems to fail WP:GNG. In general, academic conferences do not generate much coverage about themselves, and are rarely notable. One can make arguments that some conferences are famous among scholars in a given discipline, but even setting aside that this is an argument to be debated case by case, I doubt that "Computer Simulation of Radiation Effects in Solids" is major, the title sounds like a very, very niche topics which in turns suggests this may be a for-profit scammy conference that uses Wikipedia as an ad. But even if this is a serious event, and let's assume AGF (I am not accusing anyone, just saying that for the name suggests a red flag to me), again - this fails GNG. On a final note, an expert may consider merging the seemingly reliably referenced section on "Scientific background" (which has nothing to do with conference proper) to some parent article like radiation. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. As Piotrus says, this is a very specialized topic and, indeed, the article states that only 100-120 people attend these meetings. That makes this a really small event and I don't see any evidence indicating that this might meet GNG (or any other guideline for that matter). --Randykitty (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment on this from the original author of the page. It is certainly not a for-profit pseudo conference, which you could easily have figures out by checking the conference proceedings published in an Elsevier journal which are clearly cited on the page (even if you do not have access to all the articles, the table of contents and abstracts are available to anybody). Regarding notability, the research field has probably 1000-2000 people worldwide working on this, because it is an important scientific background for the semiconductor and nuclear industries. Admittedly this was not very clear in the article, so I modified it now with this kind of motivation. On the other hand, as I am not a wikipedia editor, I am not sure if this is enough to meet the GNG, but I do note there are numerous other conferencesof comparable size and width of scope with wikiedia pages. Knordlun (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Knordlun, you are a Wikipedia editor (this is a title for anyone who edits and registers and account, so you qualify). I do accept your argument that this is a reliable conference, but being a reliable conference does not mean we should have an entry for it. Now, articles on Wikipedia need to be able to show notability (WP:GNG), in other words - we are not a catalogue of conferences. We only should mention the "important" ones, and we judge this primarily by whether they received coverage in the media. Secondary, we do consider how important they are to a field, but the size of the field matters too. regarding other similar pages, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - simply, their time for deletion discussion will come when a more active editor notices them and lists them here. What I'd suggest is that we can improve this article by rewriting it into a description of a likely notable field of computer simulation of radiation effects in solids, which, in one of its sections, could discuss the conference - an entity that likely is not notable on its own, but can be discussed in a section about its field. If you would be interested in reworking the article like that, we could WP:USERFY the article in your userpage as a draft, you can then work on it and move it back to mainspace when you are done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. we need more articles on major conference series; the fact that we have so few is not reason to delete the ones we do have. But we shouldstart with the one that are the recognized most important ones in each subject, and there's no evidence of that here.  DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 22 September 2016 (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.