Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Prize in Combinatorics
- 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The result was speedy keep, the nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one else recommends that the page be deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- European Prize in Combinatorics (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)
Non-notable award. No references. All the coverage I'm seeing in google is either the websites of the annual event at which the award is given or the websites of the recipients or their institution. Only one recipient has a wikipedia article (and I intent to take that article to AfD if this is deleted). Stuartyeates (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Several of the recipients are notable and I believe that more than one should have a referring article. One of the 2009 recipients (B. Szegedy) recently won a Fulkerson Prize, which is certainly a noted award in the areas of discrete math (at least fifty percent of the recipients there do have Wikipedia articles). A number of the others are already chairs or full professors at their institutes (D. Feichtner-Kozlov, D. Kuhn, D. Osthus, P. Keevash), despite their comparatively young ages. While certainly not as significant as the prize of the European Mathematical Society (of which there is also little internet coverage), I do still feel this is a significant prize. However, the article certainly does need more references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busy365 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your arguements might carry more weight if you recast them in terms of the general notability guideline, which is the measure of notability here. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The problem with our article was not so much the significance of this award but the absence of reliable sourcing, but that can be (and now mostly has been) fixed. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets look at those: (1) is the formal announcement of the awards by awarding body. (2) Is an entry in a 'Personal column' complete with exhortation for readings to submit notices; at least some of the text is a verbatim copy from other sources. (3) Is a winner's CV (4) is a 6-line announcement with a link to a primary source (very similar in nature to (2)). (5) is the PR department of a university proclaiming that one of their people won. Only (2) and (4) are independent. Only (1) is in-depth. None are both in-depth and independent as required by with WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are being misleading in an attempt to downplay these sources. (1) is published by three noted researchers (the organizing committee of EuroComb) in a major academic journal of the subject. Neither EuroComb nor the journal is the awarding body (the awarding bodies are Combstru and Dimatia). One of the three authors of this piece happened to also be on the award committee but the other two didn't. (2), (4), and now (6) are society newsletters. (3) is not even close to being a winner's CV; it is the annual report of an entire major research center. And (5) is not a "PR department", it is an actual department. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets look at those: (1) is the formal announcement of the awards by awarding body. (2) Is an entry in a 'Personal column' complete with exhortation for readings to submit notices; at least some of the text is a verbatim copy from other sources. (3) Is a winner's CV (4) is a 6-line announcement with a link to a primary source (very similar in nature to (2)). (5) is the PR department of a university proclaiming that one of their people won. Only (2) and (4) are independent. Only (1) is in-depth. None are both in-depth and independent as required by with WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a further reference from the website of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences announcing the 2011 award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.116.41 (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems to be notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep Not the most exciting branch of mathematics, but certainly a significant one. The Steve
- Definitely this particular expression of personal taste is not universal. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My opinion only ;) The Steve 05:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely this particular expression of personal taste is not universal. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. "Exciting" is perhaps a quality of the eye of the beholder. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw Others did a better job of finding refs than I seemed able to, and the tide is clearly only going one way on this. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2012 (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.