Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LSE Alternative Investment 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  Keep. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

LSE Alternative Investment Conference

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

PROD removed by author (with explanation, to their credit). I repeat my PROD rationale, since I believe that's still relevant: "Non-notable conference. The references cited for the last line are not sufficient: the FT article is inaccessible, the other two only mention that people spoke there, and don't even give the conference's full name (let alone a discussion of the subject)." To which I would like to add that I could not find any more sources that would help establish the subject's notability. I am bringing it here for wider community input. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to criticism and the rationale for deletion by Drmies
Thank you for your comment, Drmies, and for the wider community for weighing into this discussion. I think the article should be kept for valid reasons. Please see my response to Drmies' rationale for deletion regarding the notability of the conference and the verifiability of the references.

The issues of notability and references raised against this article does not seem to be valid in light of the fact that existing articles on student-run conferences of similar scale and notability without references to any third-party sources has been allowed on Wikipedia. See Campus for Finance. Other student organisations of more questionable international notability have been allowed: Yale College Democrats and Business Leaders 2010. More concrete support for objection to deletion is detailed below.

Notability of the conference

Regarding the notability of the alternative investments conference, please kindly check the following the following two third-party sources:
 * 1) Financial Times article entirely about the conference: Maton, Brendan. “Graduates gather to gain from industry’s best”, Financial Times (FT fm), 08-Feb-2010, page 9. (This article is produced both in PRINT on February 8 2010 and ONLINE on FT.com for subscribers to the newspaper as FT grants access to archive articles only to its subscribers, myself included.) To confirm the existence of this article by the FT on the conference, please see: LSE in print. The other two references to FT.com regarding the conference can be found here and here. The FT has a circulation of 432,944 internationally.
 * 2) Hedgeweek.com article about the conference Hedgeweek is a major news agency that covers news in the hedge fund industry.

Because of its success in the past, the conference has caught the attention of big City banking and law firms and has received sponsorship from there. The conference concerned is mentioned in the Wikipedia page for Liongate Capital Management. Other sponsors of the conference include Angermayer, Brumm & Lange Group, Mayer Brown, Bain & Company, UBS, Altima Partners LLP, Bain Capital, Credit Suisse, Dechert LLP, Greenoaks Capital Management LLC, Man Group, Sankaty Advisors, International Asset Management, and J.P.Morgan.

Problems with the references

The claim in the PROD that the references "don't even give the conference's full name" is misleading. They do in fact give the conference's full name, but in slightly different forms. They come in the following forms: the LSE Alternative Investments Conference, London School of Economics' Alternative Investments Conference, LSE's Alternative Investments Conference, and the Alternative Investment Conference at the LSE. In some cases the words "Alternative Investments Conference" has not been capitalised due to confusion on the writers' part. But in the major articles about the conference itself (two of them listed above), the name of the conference has been correctly represented.

Please kindly let me know whether this helps resolving the issue of notability and reference. Thanks!

(Henry1125k (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC))

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Short response to long rebuttal: that other articles feature similar topics is not the issue here: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We cannot judge confusion on a writer's part, it seems to me, but even if those mentions are correct, I maintain that the coverage (even with the quote from the Financial Times, for which I thank you) is not substantial enough. A list of sponsors also does not add up to notability. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Although I would usually hope for WP:RS's that are not behind a paywall, it appears that WP:V and WP:N have been achieved for inclusion. - Pmedema (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I am very reluctant to consider a student club, society, or conference as notable, and have generally argued for deletion. Based on the available sources, this one seems an exception.   DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 5 December 2010 (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.