Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SimSummit

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. Source provided, and ghits and gscholar hits demonstrate its existence, but not its notability. Most of the scholarly sources refer to works published by people who work there, not necessarily by the org itself. Ged UK 12:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SimSummit

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No clear what this is or how it might meet notability guidelines. Lacks any references to 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article explain well enough what this is - a meeting and discussion structure for researchers into simulations. I had little difficulty adding a citation. The article should be retained for expansion per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, WP:IMPERFECT doesn't give a pass on notability guidelines. Can you expand on how you see this as being notable?--RadioFan (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our deletion process requires the nominator to familiarise himself with the topic and to search for relevant sources. I have added a citation and links to more sources. If you wish to know more, then please follow the links provided at the article, its talk page and above. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Google news search on the topic brings up zero hits, a web search brings up largely primary sources. A book search brings up 3 hits but they appear to be passing mentions. This doesn't appear to meet our requirement of significant coverage. Looking at the official website, I see that it goes back to 2002 but hasn't garnered much attention judging from the lack of significant sources. Perhaps if the subject receives more attention in the future, an article might be appropriate, but not now.--RadioFan (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This type of topic cannot be expected to attract news coverage. As it is a scholarly/academic matter, it is to Google Scholar that we should look and we see enough hits there to establish that the subject has been noticed. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps, but with many of those results behind pay-walls, it's difficult to evaluate them as references. There are 19 hits there and many appear to be simple mentions of membership in the organization in attribution section of papers which really doesn't do much to establish notability here. Of those that are publicly available, the organization/conference is not the subject of the paper and is mentioned only in passing. The conference itself does not appear to have produced highly cited papers or conference proceedings. This subject does not meet notability guidelines for a dedicated article, it will be sufficent as a merger into a section in Modeling and simulation.--RadioFan (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 4 gnews hits [1], gscholar verifies its existence but lacks the indepth sources covering this in detail. LibStar (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2010 (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.