- European Conference Physics of Magnetism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Deletion was too quick - one week from the first warning. I did not manage to react, as I was very busy that time. Let allow the discussion to last longer and allow people to discuss and improve the article. Please, open again the deletion discussion and recreate the article. I have found new 3rd party sources (e.g. https://gloswielkopolski.pl/jazz-klasyka-organy-i-koncert-fizykow/ar/12211999 ) and also have some arguments in favor of the article, but cannot introduce them, as the article has been deleted. In fact the article referred to two kinds of sources: the web page of the conference (which is the primary source) and the conference proceedings which have been published by different external journals and thus cannot be considered as primary sources. No scientific journal will publish proceedings of non-existent conference. Besides, hardly any conference series in the category "physics conferences" has so many well documented sources. Pkozl (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse 1 week is standard for deletion discussions. Arguments were exclusively for deletion and policy based. This is the only way this could have been closed. As for the new sources, I can't really evaluate them without seeing them.
- I will also point out that DRV is to review the closure, not introduce or rehash arguments that belong in the AfD. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Either relist or draftify so the OP can work on it. The AfD hadn't been relisted and it got two partipants other than the nominator, which is about the bare minimum required for a close other than soft deletion or no consensus. I think it's reasonable to reopen the discussion so the OP can take part. Hut 8.5 19:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse and relist close was reasonable (though the delete !votes were weak), but I'd much rather have this article, if it can meet our inclusion guidelines, than not. WP:IAR is here in spades IMO. Hobit (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not fair to raise false hopes here, folks. In fact, it's cruel. I've been unable to find the kind of sources that would change the outcome.—S Marshall T/C 23:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. In fact nearly all use of the draft namespace raises false hopes. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. DRV can look at new arguments not voiced in the AfD, to see if they are valid and might have made a difference. The DRV nomination statement does not contain an argument that could have made a difference. Independent coverage in reliable sources is required. If you think you have found such sources, make a draft and detail these sources on the draft talk page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish I could recover the page, since after deletion I cannot find it. Pkozl (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You can request the deleting admin, or at WP:REFUND, for the deleted article to be draftified. Or, now that we are here, you can ask here and now. Or, you can use google cache, but better to get a refund to preserve attribution records. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have asked the deleting admin, but he does not answer. So, maybe I ask "here and now" if you are still here? Pkozl (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the downside of coming prematurely to DRV. You have to wait for this DRV discussion to be closed before anyone will do anything. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I too have been unable to find any sources attesting to notability. The article in Głos Wielkopolski linked by the nominator is simply an announcement of some concerts held on the occasion of this conference. That it is a recycled press release is shown by the inclusion of the sentence "Na dwa niezwykłe koncerty z okazji międzynarodowej konferencji „Physics Of Magnetism” zapraszają Instytut Fizyki Molekularnej PAN oraz Wydział Fizyki UAM." Independent journalists don't have the authority to extend invitations. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Such a statement is just referring to what happens in the city and has nothing to do with being a not independent journalist. To justify such a claim you need a proof and not just a guess. If the article appeared in the journal it means that the author considered the subject important enough. Besides, the issue of the conference is in no way controversial and this press article is just confirming that the conference makes also a cultural impact on the city life. There are also other press releases, e.g: https://gloswielkopolski.pl/laureat-nagrody-nobla-na-uam/ar/419098 reporting a presence of the Nobel laureate at the conference. Pkozl (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I don't have mathematical proof but it's much better than a guess. It is based on my knowledge of Polish and the fact that I spent several years at UAM, and have often read Głos Wielkopolski. If we needed such "proof" we would never get anywhere. We make judgement calls about sources all the time. The article is pretty obviously a "what's on" piece based on a press release, not independent journalism, and says nothing about this conference other than that its sponsors also put on some concerts. We need much better than this to show notability. You are welcome to spend some time on this in draft space if you so wish, but I fear that you will fall foul of the hope-raising referred to above. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the very Wikipedia definition the content of the article should be verifiable, also through the independent sources. This was the case with the article that has been deleted. The sources it referred to were: 1. web page of the conference, 2. proceedings published in different external journals. 3. Press articles mentioning the conference 4. References to the conference found in other sources, like European Physical Society, Web pages of other universities, etc. Points 3 and 4 not yet implemented before the article was deleted. Calling the press article not independent only because it could be based on a press release is not fair, because these press articles were not advertisements, and this is the very author of the press article which decides whether the subject is worth mentioning, that is notable or not. Thus, the facts presented in the deleted article were surely verifiable through different sources. Please notice that the articles in the category "physics conferences" have most of the time no references, but the web page of the conference, or proceedings, and many of them are dead links. The most advanced contain also references to the press articles based certainly on press releases. Some examples are e.g.: European Conference on the Dynamics of Molecular Systems, Middle European Cooperation in Statistical Physics, International Conference on the Physics of Semiconductors, International Congress on Mathematical Physics, Soft Magnetic Materials Conference, ... Strangely, nobody wants to delete them... I think that notability should be understood in the specific context of the article subject. If we assume that the scientific conferences can be notable in a sense that they attract many scientist, also the best ones like Noble laureates, that they are important events for scientific community and produce substantial scientific material (proceedings) and that they are noticed by non-scientist as influencing the environment (social events and open lectures), then one should accept the appropriate sources such as proceedings, web pages of conferences and press articles. We should not expect that an "independent" (whatever it means) journalist will write a book on a series of conferences and that this book will be a bestseller... Pkozl (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not strange at all that nobody has nominated some other articles for deletion. We are all volunteers here, like you, and so edit only what we see, have time to do, and takes our fancy. It seems simply that nobody has thought to nominate those other articles for deletion. You are welcome to do so if their subjects don't meet our standards for source availability. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I shall certainly look at the other articles. There are many hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. We may get to them, but it would take another 20 years! Most of us prefer working to write the millions of articles we ought to have but do not, and especially the hundreds of thousand or so more that arise every year from new developments. My rough criterion for a conference is that it be the major international one in its field, and so important that it's covered not just by the specialist press. If you're interested in going on, I suggest the best route is to work on scientific societies, there is usually more coverage to be found, and information about their conferences(s) can & should be included--after all, ever since 1660 the two main purposes of scientific societies has been holding conferences and publishing journals. And as the easiest way to start, is to work on bios of scientists--there are special criteria at WP:PROF, and they are not difficult to meet. DGG ( talk ) 09:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC) ·[reply]
- Your criterion is indeed very rough, especially in the second part. The point is how extensive the coverage in the non-specialist press should be? Most important scientific conferences have good quality (peer reviewed) proceedings, attract many renowned scientists, are organized be scientist and not by profit-oriented professional conference organizers and are usually hardly mentioned in the non-specialist press. I reviewed all 32 articles in the category "physics conferences". Only 4 meet your rough criterion, 3 are close to it and 25 are far away from it. I think that the discussed article on the magnetic conference in Poznań after some improvements would be in the first or second group depending on the interpretation of the sources. Pkozl (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
