Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Security Council Simulation at Yale

< 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. —Kurykh 01:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Security Council Simulation at Yale

edit
Security Council Simulation at Yale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

NN Student group. Contested prod. Mystache 12:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the more important conferences on the collegiate Model UN circuit. I fail to see how this doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. See:

and finally,

http://www.yale.edu/yira/scsy

It's an important event for many students, and not just at Yale (disclosure: I'm an alum). Levan 14:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You made a long list, but it's mostly useless sources.--Svetovid 01:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dumping a list of sources doesn't a viable case for inclusion make. None of the links included are especially convincing. Some are very poor. thefreedictionary's acronym's section? Notes by some college organizations that they participated in the conference? A Yahoo directory entry? I'm sorry, but you need to look for non-trivial coverage in third-party reliable sources, not just throw every page that mentions them. The best you have are the Yale college paper, but that's somewhat questionable. FrozenPurpleCube 19:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another "model UN" student event. From the article: "distinguished from other Model UN conferences by its small size" Well, since the big ones aren't notable, that would make this one even less so. PS: The links above are just directories of student events and website links, and none is considered a reliable source we could base an article on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do agree that some of the links are not exactly top quality. However, that is a problem that is faced by many events of such kind. Could we expect to have the New York Times cover this? No. Could we expect to have other college papers cover this? Not really (couldn't imagine a Yale paper covering a Harvard conference, and vice versa). Hence, the only kind of sources that one is going to have are those within the collegiate Model UN circle, and those, for the most part, are included above. At the same time, this is an event that many of the top teams in the US list among the four or five conferences they attend every year, which, in the absence of a formal ranking of Model UN tournaments, would make it one of the top conferences in the country. If an event is important to a large number of students at multiple universities, I see no reason not to include it even in the absence of overwhelming interest from the rest of the educated public. I am new to Wikipedia, but I am under the impression that many of its articles cater to very specialized, niche audiences - and for that matter, college students doing Model UN are not the most specialized audience one could imagine. PS In Re to Starblind, I fail to see how a conference's "small size" resulting not from a lack of interest (see above), but from the policy of its organizers could make it less viable a candidate for inclusion than, say, Georgetown International Relations Association, Harvard National Model United Nations, Harvard World Model United Nations, Harvard Model United Nations, The Hague International Model United Nations, National Model United Nations, and Yale Model United Nations. Levan 05:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You just explained pretty well why these things can't have articles: no reliable sources will cover them, and the only real mention of them is in listings of student events and such. When there's no reliable sources to base an article on, the article cannot exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would certainly seem to me that the Yale Herald seems to fit the definition of a reliable source pretty well; two articles are sourced above. I'm not sure about West Point Dean's Office, but that seems pretty legitimate as well. Correct me if I am wrong?Levan 18:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • We want third-party, independent reliable sources. The SCS and the Yale Herald are associated with the same university; the coverage has to be by sources outside the university. And in regards to other Model UNs having articles, just because they have one does not mean this one should have an article too. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Generally, student newspapers and the like aren't considered reliable sources, especially for topics relating to the school itself. And besides, if something has been going on for 30 years and the most attention it's gotten is a short blurb in the school paper, it sounds patently non-notable. As I often say when these sorts of things come up, if no real publications think it's important enough to cover it, what makes you think an encyclopedia should? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • In that case, one could think about Model UN as a secret rite that has huge importance for people participating in it and does not have much importance for people not participating in it. That explains why something "recognized as the most challenging conference of its type in the collegiate Model UN circuit" as per the West Point link above gets only the coverage that it gets. This is a college event, which will be covered by college papers. And people who write college papers are very different from those who run Model UN conferences, and do not have much of an incentive to write about them unless some appalling incident happens in their midst. Does that warrant the inclusion of this article into Wikipedia? Yes, for I still maintain that the subject is notable. How so? It is one of the top four or five college Model UN conferences in the US that is attended by hundreds of students from all over the US and from a few foreign countries as well. Yes, it is a niche activity. But that does not mean that it's unimportant to those who take part in it. Could be of interest to those who don't take part in it? Perhaps. As an anthropological piece of knowledge that perhaps seeks to explain why students would spend their time on a particular activity. For someone it's Vanatühi, for someone - SCSY. Levan
            • "...huge importance for people participating in it and does not have much importance for people not participating in it." Exactly, my friend, exactly. Heck, I think at the moment you've made a better case for the article being deleted than those of us who actually voted that way. Sure, it's important to those who participate in it--but so is a sandlot baseball game or a kindergarten spelling bee or a heated round of Scrabble. It's whether people on the outside care--and, more specifically, whether they care enough to write newspaper articles, magazine features, and books about it from which an encyclopedic article can be written. Sure, it's fun for those who do it, no denial here, but that just isn't enough to base an article on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Organize a sandlot baseball game on a national level, give it a name, attract 500 participants from all over the world, and I will write for you a first-rate Wikipedia article on it and will vigorously defend the right of said event to have one, even if I couldn't care less about a sandlot baseball game. For now though, the issue is whether a college newspaper is to be considered independent in covering an event occurring at that college. My answer is yes. Hence, notability is established. Arguments against, please? Levan 06:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well obviously a baseball game with 500 people on the field would be kinda silly, but you do make a good point there. [Note: the source article says 200 people, but I'll work with your figure here since it works either way] That's an awfully low number of people to turn out for a truly notable event. Think of how many things, all over the world, every day, have that kind of turnout. Church rummage sales, block parties, local band concerts, raves, little-league sports games... heck, I've been to house parties bigger than that. Indeed, that would actually be a pretty low turnout for, say, a medium-sized flea market or a high-school football game. And while all of the above are enjoyed by those who attend, even those involved with them would never dream of trying to get an encyclopedia article about them. "Hi, Encyclopaedia Brittannica? Oh wow, you guys should totally have been at last week's East Podunk Lutheran Church swap meet. You know, the one we were fundraising for new basketball backboards for the school gym? Anyway, it was wild: this one guy bought like *four* lamps and one of Miss Yoder's girls twisted her ankle on the stepstool at the drinking fountain! Anyway you guys should do an article on it for the 2008 encyclopedia set. How 'bout it? Guys? ... Guys?" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Totally. Such a sweet little gig. And that guy who spoke at the opening ceremonies, what was his name... Blanking out. Oh, John Negroponte, now Director of National Intelligence. Such an awesome dude. And then, you know, we didn't really talk about world affairs or organize one of the best events of its kind in the USA... We just had a few beers and ate some wings. Great life. Levan 01:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. This is just a recent news, which maybe belongs to Wikinews, but definitely not here.--Svetovid 11:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I am the Secretary-General for the Security Council Simulation at Yale.

I'm new to wikipedia, so I'm going to just lay out my argument completely.

In order for anything to be worthy of a wikipedia article, it must meet the standards of notability: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

Levan has listed multiple sources, all of which have been contested based on their significance and independence. I only want to address significance in this post.

I offer the following two college newspaper articles published about SCSY, one from the University of Chicago and another from McGill University, in addition to what Levan has already offered:

Although these articles are few, they are publications at other universities covering SCSY in detail.

Furthermore, Levan has already noted that SCSY is covered in multiple college MUN websites. SCSY is also mentioned in United Nations-affiliated websites, namely the United Nations Association, although this is the product of self-submitted information:

And in addition, a published author on Model United Nations cites SCSY as the basis of his authority on the subject:

The primary problem with these sources, of course, is that SCSY is not covered significantly. But I claim that the numerous websites mentioning SCSY trivially, SCSY's recognition by a widely-respected authority on Model United Nations (the UN association), and direct newspaper coverage on SCSY all add up to significant coverage.

Finally, I claim that implicit in Wikipedia's notability policy is that an article deserves to exist when its claims are proportional to its coverage. The main claim of the SCSY article is that something called SCSY exists and it is part of Model United Nations. Although multiple sources list SCSY trivially, other sources cover the conference extensively, and all of these sources support the article's claim. My argument also seems to apply to other Model United Nations wikipedia articles as well, which is important because it seems that the wikipedia community is considering deleting any articles on MUN conferences because they see a systemic lack of significant coverage. But the fact is that a Model United Nations community exists and sources are few and far between because we cover each other, but MUN is a cultural phenomenon that deserves more and wider coverage.

So, I hope my post on significance is convincing; I also have other arguments on the independence of sources related to MUN. ryanvilla 05:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again, although in your argument you state that you think this should be kept, the reasoning you've outlined actually highlights the reasons why these are always deleted, namely "sources are few and far between", etc. And the sources that do exist are school newspapers, which don't count. Just because something exists doesn't mean it gets an encyclopedia article. I ask once again, if no real publications think it's important enough to cover it, what makes you think an encyclopedia should? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am yet to see a valid and logical explanation as to why school sources do not count. If a Yale paper wrote a groundbreaking story about Skull and Bones, I would argue that it is better researched than anything the NYT could have written, if for no reason that a Yale paper would have been far closer to the source of the story. The same holds for the conferences. Levan 06:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • See Wikipedia:Independent sources. Yale's newspapers don't count since they are also affiliated with the university like this group is, so their coverage about the SCS will likely not be impartial. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The whole point is that this group is not affiliated with the university in any formal way. And, for that matter, I am not even sure that so is any of the papers. Both the conference and the papers are independent non-profit entities registered in Connecticut. Yes, they happen to be run by different subsets of people going to the same university. I don't see how that biases one in writing about the other. Levan 12:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, as far as it goes, as a college paper, it's likely to give coverage to subjects related to the college, rather than any kind of neutral coverage. I'm certainly unconvinced that it doesn't. FrozenPurpleCube 04:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • To reiterate an argument I've recently made elsewhere, a local newspaper in West Bushwick is going to be biased towards writing about events in West Bushwick. And yet, when writing about a festival happening in West Bushwick, it is entirely reasonable to rely on this newspaper's coverage. Same goes for a college newspaper. Note that I am not relying on the opinions of the YDN to write about world affairs, for that would be pure folly. On matters related to Yale, however, the YDN and the Herald are trustworthy sources of information. As to the official Wikipedia policy, the only thing that I can see there is this: Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The reliability of a source depends on the context: a world-renowned mathematician is not a reliable source about biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Both newspapers satisfy this definition perfectly well, and I do not see anything in this definition that coverage by these newspapers does not provide. Levan 06:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • For what its worth, local newspapers are also considered pretty weak sources as far as Wikipedia is concerned, especially when it comes to establishing the notability of a subject. Certainly no reasonable wikipedian would claim that every subject covered in every local newspaper everywhere deserves a wikipedia article. But that's a bit beside the point because this particular event hasn't even risen to that level of coverage: apparently all its had in 30 years of existance are two short articles in student-written school papers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually, the problem isn't whether the sources are reliable or not. You're barking up the wrong tree here. As far as it goes, I'd probably not support writing an article about a festival in West Bushwick simply because it was covered in the local paper. Now if that festival made major news headlines, like say, the running of the bulls in Pamplona, I'd be willing to use it, but absent that, it's not convincing as a reason for an article. I'm not especially concerned about the accuracy of those papers. I'm sure they're reliable enough. I'm concerned more about their focus, and significance. Sorry, but college papers right about college events. If something about the college merits coverage elsewhere, then they'd be useful as sources, but they're not convincing on their own as reasons for an article. FrozenPurpleCube 22:56, 10 July 2007 (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/Security_Council_Simulation_at_Yale&oldid=1138350167"