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. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wseas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article for organization with no third-party coverage outside of press releases. This is a self-promotional article that has been deleted multiple times already under db-g11 (see: deletion logs at Wseas, WSEAS, World scientific and engineering academy and society, and World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society) - Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is something of a fascinating case as far as I am concerned. WSEAS is a Greece-based academic conference planning organisation with a large internet presence per google searches. As Barek points out, versions of this article have been deleted multiple times as promotional/advertising. The current article is hardly in that category, but there are, I believe questions about whether it meets our criteria for notability.

• WSEAS puts on many, many conferences yearly [1] and as a result there are many, many googlehits mentioning the organization, often as citations to the papers presented at them, [2][3], as well as multiple other self-published references that include the press releases referred to above.
• The organization appears to be controversial in some circles, with (for our intents and purposes likely unreliable) blogs and webpages making allegations of spamming to get submissions [4][5], questioning the quality of the conferences [6][7], including the acceptance/rejection rates.[8].

• Delete - I mostly agree with Slp1: I am familiar with WSEAS, but only as the sender of spammy emails advertising in a quite naive way meetings and journals unheard of elsewhere. So, unless a reliable, independent source can be found about its activities, I do not believe it can be deemed notable. Goochelaar (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm in much the same position as Goochelaar, I kind of liked the idea of having the article there as a warning, but if the sources on their spamming aren't even acceptable I'm pretty sure the sources on their actual conferences (if there are any) aren't either. Delete. --fvw* 00:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ive done a fairly thorough search for the notability of their publications, None of there journals are covered in web of science. almost none of them are held by more than one or two worldcat university libraries. Few are indexed by he major indexing Ulrichs lists them, but indicate that most of he m are not peer reviewed., services. There is no imaginable way we could have an article on thiis organization as it does nothing notable to write about. If we were a consumer guide, not an encyclopedia, we could includes these results showing that their journals and other publications are totally insignificant.As our role is an encyclopedfa, we need to refrain from that, regardless of the temptatation. to explode this bubble. DGG (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being in the scientific field, these are not considered reputable. I've gotten quite a few spammed messages from them. Nobody else seems to have given this organization much thought and an encyclopedia, being a tertiary source, should certainly not be the first one to do so. --Polaron | Talk 23:20, 18 December 2008 (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.