Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research Students Conference Probability and Statistics


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Research Students Conference Probability and Statistics

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is an orphaned article, and is not notable. Further, having read the article's talk page, it would appear that the article is in violation of WP:OR. It may be worth referring to the deletion discussion for a related article, AfD:Research Students Conference, which was deleted. - m - i - k - e - y - Talk / C 02:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "m-i-k-e-y", can you explain what looks to you like "original research" in this article? That seems extraordinarily far-fetched to me.  The author of this article was the first to discover that this conference exists, and posted it here to announce it for the first time to the world?  Isn't that what original research is? Michael Hardy (talk) 06:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Michael Hardy", to quote User:Srw1138 on the talk page: "All the information presented by here was obtained through email correspondence and general discussions" - m - i - k - e - y - Talk / C 09:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:ORG, non-notable student event. Looks like primarily an excuse to park a LOT of external links on Wikipedia.  Haven't these kids heard of NOFOLLOW tags? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh???? The article has no external links! Yet you criticize it as an "excuse to park a LOT of external links on Wikipedia".  And the phrase "these kids" invites us to be disrespectful to you.  You shouldn't go out of your way to incite should things. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, you're talking about links to the talk schedules. But there's nothing that looks as if the article is just an excuse for such links.  Andrew Lenahan, you've seriously damaged your credibility by your way of phrasing your comments. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:ORG and WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTWEBSPACE and WP:PROMOTION.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is absurd to suggest this is an attempt at promotion. Obviously the target audience from promotion would not be reached here, but rather would be reached where they are: postings on bulletin boards of the appropriate academic departments and the like.  The creator of the article stated on its talk page why he created it.  His comments are credible, and don't sound stupid like the comments posted here suggesting that it's for the purpose of promotion or "parking weblinks", or the suggestion that someone hasn't heard of "nofollow" tags. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The text is not particularly promotional, but often the creation of Wikipedia articles for subjects that do not follow the general notability guidelines are to give said subject visibility and thus often promotion. In this case, it's more of a matter of WP:NOTWEBSPACE. If the author wants to make a webpage for past, present and possibly future conferences, he'll have to find another website to do so. Regardless, there appears to be no significant coverage by reliable sources of this event to establish its notability and warrant keeping this article.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. If the article is kept (which looks extremely unlikely), then it should be moved to the correctly punctuated "Research Students' Conference Probability and Statistics", or else its authors are likely to be mauled by an angry panda.  Also, the sentence "As usual, this four day event is organised by postgraduates, for postgraduates, providing an excellent opportunity to make contact and discuss work with other students who have similar interests" is a clear red flag, altough I was unable to find the source from which this was copied.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no strong feelings about keeping or deleting this article, although I lean mildly toward keeping it, but much of the above looks like a competition to find meritless reasons for deleting. An excuse for external links?  Clearly that is not the case.  "Promotion"??  That is idiotic!  The target audience from promotion will not be reached here; they're found elsewhere. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Some of the reasons given do appear to be clutching at straws.  However, that does not change the fact that the article relies almost entirely on primary source material (including email correspondences, by the admission of the article's creator).  I don't really have a strong opinion either, but I would like to see some sources that meet WP:V included.  I couldn't find much in the way of general information by cursory googling, aside from our own article, and this is generally a bad sign.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment "Idiotic"? Steady now, Michael Hardy! - m - i - k - e - y - Talk / C 09:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase that. It's what I would expect someone to write if they weren't thinking about whether it's true or not, but just trying to collect things out of lists of valid grounds for deleting articles. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: Whether or not some of the reasons given above are valid, WP:ORG is about coverage in secondary sources and that doesn't seem to exist here. I'm not entirely convinced that WP:ORG should be the criteria for inclusion of scholarly societies, but this doesn't seem to be a good test case.--RDBury (talk) 04:51, 12 March 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.