Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Program for Research In Mathematics, Engineering and Science (PRIMES)


 * 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  19:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Program for Research In Mathematics, Engineering and Science (PRIMES)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete does not have stand alone notability. A redirect might be appropriate but in current form article seems more to promote then inform. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The following changes have been made to the article:

Dodecahedronic (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)    A link to Honors and Awards page has been removed to eliminate the appearance of promotion.
 * 2)    Links to two articles in major U.S. newspapers have been added.
 * 3)    A link to an interview with a PRIMES alumna has been removed, and replaced with a link to an MIT News report.
 * 4)    The list of references includes a detailed article about PRIMES in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society, a peer-reviewed publication of the main U.S. professional society of mathematicians. PRIMES is the only research program for high school students ever featured in a separate article in the Notices of the AMS.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: The references in the Boston and Philadelphia papers mention the subject only in passing, and certainly don't provide the "significant coverage" the GNG requires. I've yet to see persuasive evidence of the subject's notability.   Ravenswing   00:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The Globe and Philadelphia Inquirer articles are about the success of students whose work was done entirely in PRIMES, even if PRIMES is mentioned only once or twice. This can be established by looking at the acknowledgements section of their research papers.

Also major newspapers never publish articles fully dedicated to math research programs. This does not mean that these programs are not notable. There is also no significant coverage in the media of the other major math programs about which Wikipedia has articles, i.e., Canada/USA Mathcamp, Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics, PROMYS, which are much older than PRIMES, and would presumably have had more time to be covered. These articles all appear to be the same in terms of notability.

E.g., there are 75 papers written by PRIMES students, 16 of them already published in major peer-reviewed math research journals. These papers are entirely based on the work done in PRIMES (even if PRIMES is mentioned only once in them, in the acknowledgments). Would it help if links to them are added?

Also even though PRIMES is not yet 5 years old, it already has 70 alumni, who are now undergraduate and graduate students at top US universities. And PRIMES students took all the top basic research awards in the Intel Science Talent Search 2015.

Also please refer to the PRIMES report http://math.mit.edu/research/highschool/primes/materials/PRIMES-Cumulative-Report.pdf for additional detail on the program, and as a further argument in favor of notability.

A Wikipedia article about PRIMES would be useful for many people interested in mathematics, in terms of both education and doing research. Dodecahedronic (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Even as I am not in the USA, and not member of any of the related institution, I have heard of this program, that's why I think that it may be notable enough, and I accepted it. But it may need more or better sources. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Note A new source was added, which links to an NSF award grant for the program. Dodecahedronic (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply: I strongly recommend you review WP:GNG and WP:ORG, the notability guidelines bearing the most on this AfD. The fundamental criterion for a subject's inclusion in Wikipedia is simple: it must have received non-primary "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources.  The fundamental policy behind them -- WP:V -- is likewise simple: all material, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable to a published, reliable source. That coverage must be about the subject: a source which is about other people or things connected to the subject doesn't count.  That's the definition of "notability" on Wikipedia: whether the world has heard about something or not. That PRIMES students have written papers is irrelevant; those wouldn't constitute reliable sources about PRIMES.  That PRIMES alumni are undergraduate and graduate students is not only irrelevant, but unimpressive -- the same could be said about many a high school football team.  That you or anyone else may have heard of the program is irrelevant -- to quote WP:V, "[Wikipedia]'s content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors."  And, certainly, if you've identified other such articles that lack proper sources, they're just as eligible to be taken to AfD.  (That being said, two of the articles you claim to not have proper sourcing do; publications such as the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Harvard Crimson, Toronto Globe and Mail, and the Notices of the American Mathematical Society absolutely qualify.) Finally, we're exhorted all the time at AfD to keep an otherwise non-qualifying article because it would purportedly be "useful" to this group or that.  However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional website, and the best avenue to promote it would be on MIT's own website ... which, I see, it does.   Ravenswing   03:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   08:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply All articles mentioned above, including the PRIMES article (not just two) satisfy the notability criteria, that's why they were accepted. PRIMES is the only subject of the feature article in the Notices of the AMS, which you say "absolutely qualify". This article was accepted by a body independent of PRIMES and MIT. Likewise, there are two links to the NSF public website devoted to PRIMES (one of them a highlight); obviously, NSF is an independent source. Whether "70 alumni, who are now undergraduate and graduate students at *top* US universities" (49 of them at Harvard and MIT alone, see https://math.mit.edu/research/highschool/primes/alumni.php) is "unimpressive" is an arguable point. What is not arguable is that " the same could be said about many a high school football team" - this is clearly not the case. Dodecahedronic (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply: Sorry, but press releases to sites don't count. Neither do, of course, any links to MIT.  You may also be confused as to how articles get onto Wikipedia in the first place; in the cases of those other three articles, they were just put up by the creating editors, and went through no vetting process at all.  In the case of this article, I am rather dismayed to find that you attempted to submit it through Articles for Creation, only for it to be rejected five times --      -- before being added by an editor who admits above that he had no basis for doing so other than that he'd heard of the program.  I recognize that you have been trying to get this article onto Wikipedia for over a year and a half -- doing so is pretty much your sole Wikipedia activity -- but this program just doesn't qualify for an article, no matter how much you want it to do so.   Ravenswing   15:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * delete as not notable, Not enough evidence for notability and very unlikely to be notable.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 14:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's based at MIT says something. I'm leaning somewhat toward Keep. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what guideline allows inherited notability based on association unless you refer to WP:IAR Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, inherited notability is explicitly disallowed. There are a great many things based at MIT, including student clubs, lectures, academic departments and the school janitors.  We don't, thereby, have articles on the university's intramural water polo matches, the Student Art Association or the MIT Anime Club.   Ravenswing   02:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Questions to @User:Dodecahedronic. I noticed in this diff here that you used the word "we" when discussing your actions.  Are you more than one person?  And considering that this article seems to be the only one you've edited in your eighteen months on Wikipedia, are you connected with the program in any way?  NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - couldn't find enough on the search engines to show it passes WP:GNG. The fact that it's a non-notable program based at a notable university is irrelevant.  Onel 5969  TT me 20:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete while a program's non-Wikipedia reputation may be significantly created by the work done by its participants, Wikipedia notability is not inherited up or down. If a program has developed a significant reputation it will be written about in its own right (qua propria persona) in independent, reliable secondary sources. The AMS article in a peer-reviewed journal is a good source for verification, but since the authors are all intimately invovled with this MIT program, it cannot be considered an independent source.  While receiving mentions, the topic fails for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2015 (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.