Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boston-NeuroTalks

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boston-NeuroTalks

edit
Boston-NeuroTalks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable Yahoo group talk anouncement service used by supposedly "more than 700 people" , author of page User:Tren huang is likely one of the moderators listed in the article. Passportguy (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://in.dir.groups.yahoo.com/dir/Science/Biology/Neuroscience

Other larger groups in the same category are less academia-oriented general forums.

In addition, it's listed or discussed in well-know websites or professional labs such as follows:

http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/martinos/userInfo/operations/mailingLists.php

http://network.nature.com/groups/DecisionsDopamineReward/forum/topics/2588

http://www.musicianbrain.com/neuroscience.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tren huang (talk • contribs) 22:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bu.edu/neuropsychology/memberpages/ms.html

Finally, the service is sometimes referred to "neurotalks" or "boston neurotalks" instead of "boston-neurotalks". That's probably why search engines cannot find all relevant webpages.

Tren huang (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
None of those sources is substantial either. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "more than 700 (cognitive) neuroscientists " - I'm tempted to ask how many non-thinking ones use it as well, but that mightn't be fair. However, I do consider this a limited interest website/forum/whatever. (I would consider 700 cognitive neuroscientists to be a rather high number even for Greater Boston, unless they tend to congregate there for some reason. I couldn't see there being that many in most large cities. Even if this is right, I do not see it increases the notability.) Peridon (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

_________

I'd like to add to this discussion. Boston-NeuroTalks is a very significant contribution to the Neuroscience community and has members not only in the Boston Area but also around the world. It is important that readers realize that Boston is one of the most active neuroscience communities around the world and that as such Boston-NeuroTalks is a unique service used by world leading academics. I must admit that I am confused why the suitability of this entry is being challenged. 

 Aaron Seitz, Ph.D.
 Assistant Professor
 Department of Psychology
 University of California, Riverside

aseitz (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC) — Aseitz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ______________[reply]

It's being considered because it doesn't appear to be more than a limited interest group - and vast as it is, Wikipedia can't cover everything. If you can show that it is more than that, I for one will reconsider my present opinion. At the moment, there are no independent reliable references to show notability, and it appears to be an announcement service, which is inherently non-notable. Over to you... Peridon (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

_________

Wow, no wonder academics are beginning to look for other services. Isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia to be a broad all encompassing database? I am shocked to see this particular page to be attacked so quickly. It is correct, there is nothing controversial and it documents something that it notable world-wide. What wisdom do you have to challenge this? What is the risk of the page being added to the database? What is the risk of omission of something that is important that you just didn't know or care about? Please think about this before acting in such a unilateral manner about something for which you have no knowledge!

my last word,

-Aaron aseitz (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC) — Aseitz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • "Isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia to be a broad all encompassing database?" No, it's to hold things that are already notable; i.e., that are already talked about significantly in reliable third party sources. I have no idea why notability is so hard to grasp for new editors. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You see, we don't have to know about it for it to be notable or significant, but i see this nowhere on any website but it's own. That's not significance or notability. This has none, and does not belong in our encyclopedia. T3chl0v3r (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utterly fails WP:WEB and that really is the only thing that needs to be said. If someone can show that it clearly meets WP:WEB and the sources have been added to the article please notify me so I can re-evaluate. Drawn Some (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would be shocked if pages not suitable for inclusion WEREN'T 'attacked' quickly. This isn't an attack. It's a discussion. (Well, it's supposed to be. I'm seeing not a lot from certain quarters other than 'It's how we want it and beggar you lot'.) If you can improve the current position of the article, please do so. We've told you what's wrong with it. There are 5 to 7 days left for changes to be made. "What wisdom do you have to challenge this?" We have the wisdom of being Wikipedia editors - and people with wide-ranging knowledge of many fields. We are the ones who look after this place. We are the ones who take part in the discussions - both of articles like this, and of the basic rules of Wikipedia itself. Before you accuse us of ignorance, have a look at the range of articles we have edited or discussed. By 'we' I mean those taking part here in this discussion. I think you'll find a pretty wide variety of stuff. Peridon (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's not matter of attacking. We do not attack pages , we decide in a reasonable and objective way whether they are suitable here. On the one hand, we should not get all defensive when newcomers do not understand the standards that we use, but on the other we do expect them to take some effort to understand the purposes of the project. Wikipedia is not "a broad encompassing database", but a comprehensive encyclopedia. There's a difference. an encyclopedia treats of things likely to be important enough to be of some degree of long-term reference interest. A comprehensive world wide encyclopedia like ours covers what conventional encyclopedias would, if they had no limits of space, thousands of world-wide contributors, and a concern with all areas of human activity, including the contemporary. A directory of local disciplinary announcement services is not what one looks for in an encyclopedia, but in a web directory. It is possible for one to be so important that it is of general interest, but it has to be shown by actual evidence from 3rd party reliable sources. Even though Boston is a very prominent place in the academic world, almost all talks given there are of local interest only, and only for a short while. DGG (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neuroscience is notable, even Neuroscience in Boston is probably notable. But a list of talks is simply a list of talks. Not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Functionality =/= Notability. E.g. Yahoo is simply a list of other webpages.
  • All I see is some university pages that establish its existence, and verify that some people are using it. Verifiability is one issue, notability is another. Hairhorn (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article has no secondary sources. The sources are: (1) uni site showing there is a mailing list; (2) a site (related to subject?) with a link to a mailing list; (3) someone's home page with a link; (4) a totally unrelated site that says "Inspired by the Boston-NeuroTalks site". These references do not even discuss the subject, and certainly do not say the subject is notable. Johnuniq (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (1) MGH Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging is one of the most notable brain imaging centers in the world. It's not a random non-notable organization. (2) A website/service in Italy is set up due to the inspiration from Boston-NeuroTalks, proving the world-wide notability of Boston-NeuroTalks. Tren huang (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC). — Tren huang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.129.176 (talk) — 71.174.129.176 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment - Appears to be popular amongst certain people but not of general interest but, more importantly, a few funny things come to my attention:
  1. The number of SPAs in this discussion is very impressive.
  2. I enjoyed the threat of how academics are "looking for different services". On the one hand, academics shouldn't be coming to Wikipedia as the font of all knowledge on topics such as neuroscience - that's what books and professional journals are for. On the other, academics should be interested in helping contribute to Wikipedia, and helping us give as much information on these topics as we can. SPAs! Join us now and help us improve! Don't just sit there complaining. There's so much more to do.
  3. Most intriguingly, searching on Google for "Boston NeuroTalks" gives 1,970,000 results. Whip out the hyphen and we're down to 32,500 results. And take out "Boston"? We get 109,000 results. So I ask how a more specific query (the first) yields more results than a less specific one (the others). Seems Google's out of the picture in this discussion, lads and ladies.
Greg Tyler (t • c) 19:11, 28 May 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boston-NeuroTalks&oldid=1075165234"