Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology


 * 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   no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. it appears to have a lot of sources but everything listed (And everything I've found) is psychology or university websites connected with this event. it gets very little third party coverage, only 2 gnews hits. LibStar (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Gnews is not applicable to academic books and series and the conferences that generate them. Rather, hecking in worldcat shows the first vol in over 800 libraries, and each subsequent vol. in between 200 0and 500. Checking for citations is harder, because most will be for the individual articles, but a quick check under the series title in Google Scholar shows a total of many hundreds. I consider that notability for a series of scientific symposia.  DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * the google scholar hits are almost always 1 mention in a large citation. I would not call that indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2013 (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.