mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer Science in Russia (symposium) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Computer_Science_in_Russia_(symposium)

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. No reliable, secondary sources about this event are referenced or even available. A future article could be created if those reliable, secondary sources about the event itself - not simply papers presented at the conference - can be found and provided. KrakatoaKatie 05:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Science in Russia (symposium)

[edit]
Computer Science in Russia (symposium) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this via speedy as a A7, but the big issue was that it had been removed by a user other than the original creator. I do have serious doubts about the symposium's notability and I do think that there is some COI involved, as one of the user's names seems to be the same as the name of the author of this book that is a list of the proceedings of the symposium. However since this is a Russian event, there is the possibility of sources in Russian so I'd prefer this go through AfD, especially since I'm not sure that re-tagging an article with a speedy tag is really something applicable here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


There are some reasons why the conference is important on the talk page of the original article. I don't think one need to copy it here. I also want to add some observations:

(It was me above) Avsmal (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well... part of the problem is that events are not notable for having notable persons involved in their production or for attending. (WP:NOTINHERITED) An article by a notable person is good, as long as the article itself is not actually part of the event, as is the case for the book I linked to. That's the official proceedings for the event, which make it a WP:PRIMARY source. Even if the publisher is technically separate, this is still the official writeup by the CSR symposium and is considered to be a primary source. As far as an event being international or long running, just being an international long-running event isn't enough. You have to show that it has received coverage in sources that are independent of the subject (WP:PRIMARY) Even if the event was the only one of its kind in the world, that still wouldn't be enough. You have to show that it has received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the event. Being international and somewhat long running just means that it might be more likely that this has received coverage in reliable sources. I just couldn't find anything non-primary to suggest that this is a notable symposium. I have no true issue with it being userfied if it does get deleted, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding notability inheritance: notability is not inherited, that's true. I didn't try to say that the conference is notable for only the fact that some notable persons are involved in it. The conference is notable if it is accepted by the scientific community as a "good conference". If and only if the conference is accepted as "good" one, notable persons start participating in. There are a lot of notable TCS persons who we involved in the conference (speakers, invited speakers, program commitee, etc.). And this implies that the conference is accepted as "good" one. Avsmal (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We still need coverage in reliable sources to show notability. Just having people think well of it in the community isn't enough. There are a lot of events that people think well thought of and accept, yet just being well thought of isn't enough. It must have coverage in reliable sources to show notability. An article can't be kept unless it has multiple reliable sources that show notability for the subject. That's ultimately what this article is lacking: reliable sources. It's generally considered that if a subject is considered to be highly noteworthy within its field, a reliable source would have covered the event in some capacity. If there aren't RS about the event, then we can't show that the subject passes WP:GNG and the article shouldn't be kept. Rather than argue on your say-so that the symposium passes notability guidelines, you should show that it passes notability guidelines by providing reliable sources. Pretty much no article will be kept on the argument that "It's notable" without at least 3-4 good in-depth reliable and non-primary sources. I'm bolding several parts of this because trying to assert notability without providing reliable sources is pretty useless when it comes to keeping an article here in AfD. We can go back and forth, but without reliable sources to back up notability the back and forth is pretty moot. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with those sources is that the first one is a question on a forum-esque type site where anyone can ask a question and anyone can answer it. It's an open wiki, which is considered to be pretty much virtually unverifiable as far as who is posting, what they're backing it up with, and such. It's not considered to be a reliable source. The second one is an academic search. The big thing about search hits is that you can't guarantee that everything that comes up is usable as a RS. It's very, very common for someone to say that something has a lot of hits, only for those hits to be brief mentions, false positives, or primary sources. By primary I mean that they are papers that were presented at the symposium. This makes them attached to the event, which would make them primary regardless of who wrote them or whether or not they're peer reviewed. In this case it looks as if many of them look to have been published specifically for the symposium, which is to be expected. Part of the event puts a heavy emphasis on receiving an award for the best paper, after all. The additional problem with papers is that you need to ensure that they actually discuss the symposium rather than just topics of discussion at the event. I can't really see where these actually discuss CSR itself rather than computer science in general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Individual symposia are almost never notable, but this is a series, and it might be. It isn't published separately, but as volumes that are a small part of a long series of other computer science topics, so there is no way of judging by library holdings. So I looked att he individual prize papers . In Google Scholar, they have successive citations of 13, 8, 10, 4, and , which is absurdly low for a major conference in a fields where the most important publications are in conferences. The conclusion is that it is not a major conference. A "good" conference is not one where good people sit in the audience--that's like judging a show by whether notable people buy tickets, and not even one where notable people attend and publish what they couldn't publish elsewhere; it's one where notable people attend and publish good papers-- that's like judging a show by whether it has notable performers giving their notable works. If the best things presented are of trivial interest, it's not a notable show, or a notable conference. DGG ( talk ) 15:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
in partial disagreement with my friend TokyoGirl, the GNG is not the main factor for academic or scientific works, though I do agree that to some extent if a scientific presentations catches exceptionally wide public interest, which can indeed be judged by the GNG, it can be considered notable for our purposes. We have considered a very few scientists notable in cases like that, but in each case I recall here this been strongly challenged,and most such claims rejected unless there is exceptional coverage. DGG ( talk ) 15:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the citation count, (1) we are talking about the conference and not about the prize, (2) note that this is a TCS conference (and not computational biology, for example), and the citation tradition here does not assume that you get many citations very fast. Still, I have just searched (at Google Scholar) for just the first paper in the list of awarded papers (Jez and Okhotin), and found 31+17=48 papers citing it (you may be also misguided by the fact that many of the citations go to the journal version of the paper published well after the conference). (Still let me repeat we are not talking about the awards at the moment.) Edwardahirsch (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd said it above, but the citation count doesn't always mean notability. Sometimes it just means that these papers were shown at CSR and the name of the conference is attached to them. You also have to be wary of false positives. Something I've run into with multiple scholarly journal searches it that they'll list the same thing several times. For example, a search will bring up a paper and then bring up a "citation" that is just the paper being listed in the content list for wherever it was listed. Other times you'll come up with things that briefly mention something. Just stating that something comes up with a number of citations isn't really enough: you have to verify that the citations are actually valid. That's why most articles about things aren't really kept on the number of citations but on the content therein. As far as the sources you listed go, this one just lists the various official papers that were considered to be primary sources earlier. This one just has it in a list, which isn't something that would give it notability. Many related pages list conferences that relate to the page's subject matter. As far as the Google hits for the name in Russian goes, WP:GHITS and how many hits you get back aren't always a sign of notability. Just like the citation searches, it's about content and not quality. If all you get back are false positives, primary sources, and non-usable links, then the amount of hits won't help the case out any. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... the first link, is that the paper for Kazan State University? If so, then that would be considered a primary source. It looks like it is, from what I can tell. The second one I'd have to run through the RS noticeboard. The big issue for that one is that it looks like anyone can submit a tip per this page on the website. That doesn't mean that it's not usable, but it does make it less likely because we would have to look into what their article and editing policies are. That's part of the big problem with using online newspapers/journals. It doesn't mean that it's completely unusable, so I'll run it through the noticeboard. The third link to the IT newspaper is another one that would be debatable, but I'll run them through the RS noticeboard and see what they come up with. If they're usable then they would help towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that you have to back this up with reliable sources. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by having notable persons involved in it and the output of an entire country in any context (computers, books, etc) doesn't mean that conventions or events held on these subjects inherits notability either. Saying that there are other articles on other events doesn't really count much either, as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS pretty much states that other articles may exist because they have reliable sources or just because they haven't been found and nominated yet. You have to back this up with reliable sources rather than say "notable people are involved and Russia does stuff with computers, plus other articles on computer conventions exist". That's not really a valid argument for keeping an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing on basis of WP:NOTINHERITED. It seems to me that symposiums may not be the standard procedure of presenting a academic paper in case of CS in Russia. It will be highly relevant here if you or the author of this article can show some other examples of CS symposium in Russia. If the symposium thing is new in Russian context and it is having a academic impact in CS research in Russia then surely it is notable. Since a notable academician Alexander Razborov is associated (as per the above comment) it is safe to assume the symposium is having at least some impact in Russian CS research. The Legend of Zorro 10:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comemnt (1) Every event a notable person goes to is not therefore notable, Every book a notable person is one of the editors of is not therefore notable. (it is true that every book a really famous person writes is therefore notable but I don't think it would apply to editorships of conferences or scientific papers.) (2) yes, I noticed that one of the papers was in fact published elsewhere, since what people cited primarily was not the conference, that's further evidence against the ;conference being notable. (3} On almost any topic, Wikipedia has dozens (or sometimes hundreds) of articles that shouldn't be there. Having made one mistake, we are not committed to continuing the error. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding (2), let me explain how it works. In (theoretical) computer science, you first submit your paper to a conference, it is accepted (or rejected, because of the competition), presented and published, and later a "polished" version of it is submitted to a journal. Still conferences remain the primary medium in disseminating CS results, they are far more important than journals (in CS, contrary to, say, mathematics and other fields). In particular, the "elsewhere" mentioned above is a special issue devoted to this particular conference. Edwardahirsch (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I agree with you DGG in all of your 3 statements but I am still stick to my rationale that "symposiums/conferences/seminars may not be the standard procedure of presenting a academic paper in case of CS in Russia". Excluding the nomination the only example of symposiums/conferences/seminars I can find is Kolmogorov Centennial Conferences. I may be wrong but this is sticking me in voting Keep unless someone can show evidence that some other examples of CS symposiums exist in Russia. The Legend of Zorro 01:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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.