Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INSTICC

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. The anonymous IP comments assert notability sufficiently to avoid speedy deletion in accordance with WP:CSD#A7, but that is a different standard of notability than we consider in deletion discussions here. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

INSTICC[edit]

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

This has been around for a few years but it still does not have any reliable references other than its own. There are many fake organisations around which arrange scam conferences and provide vanity publishing for papers that wouldn't pass peer review. I make no suggestion that this is one such company, but at present from the information provided I cannot tell whether this is bona fide or fraud Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent reliable sources found after searching. They are fairly well known for sending spam emails but that doesn't contribute to notability. -- 101.119.14.170 (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete. The general consensus of authors and reviewers of their conferences is that they organize only good conferences and some of them are actually excellent conferences (rank A); many of their keynote speakers are top scientists from well known universities such as MIT, ETH-Zurich, etc. Frequently they co-operate with or are technically co-sponsored by ACM, AAAI, IEEE and other prestigious international associations. Furthermore, most of their conferences publish proceedings at SCITEPRESS and post-conference best papers with Springer LNAI, LNBIP, LNCS, CCIS, and others. 85.244.136.210 (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC) — 85.244.136.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do not Delete. INSTICC organized conferences follow a double-blind review process with the help of international program committees, usually with more than 20 countries represented and an "oral papers" acceptance rate of around 40%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.246.20.147 (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC) — 85.246.20.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. The article lacks independent sources that indicate notability and I have not been able to locate any significant coverage. Editing history is mostly a list of single purpose accounts (as are the "do not deletes" here), suggesting this is merely self-promotional/COI. Peacock (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2014 (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.