Talk:International Mathematical Modeling Challenge

Notability

@Piotrus: Regarding the recent proposal to delete this article based on a lack of evidence of notability:

It certainly appears that the subject of the article not just meets but exceeds Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline.

Is there significant coverage? Yes, see 27 different sources cited below the article, a majority of which are either a) from the news media or b) from university/academic websites.
Are the sources reliable? They certainly appear to be. Some of the most notable sources include Harvard University (source 6), the University of Texas at Austin (source 9), Hong Kong Polytechnic University (source 11), the University of Utrecht (source 13), Sky Post (source 21), the Hong Kong Commercial Daily (source 22), and the Hong Kong Economic Journal (source 24). It seems difficult to believe any of these sources are producing biased information.
Source types: the majority of these sources (particularly the university/academic ones) are secondary sources. But even for the primary sources, (e.g., Hong Kong Economic Journal), it would be quite odd for them to send a reporter to report on something that is not notable.
Independent of the subject: Certainly, some non-independent sources are cited, because they are required to ensure the requisite descriptive information is included on the page. But for notability purposes, there is an array of different independent sources (certainly all of the universities and newspapers) that confirm the notability of this contest.

The user tagging this page for deletion also suggested this article ought to comply with the Notability (events) requirement. The International Mathematical Modeling Challenge is not an event. It is a competition, with the problem released in March and the awards ceremony concluding in July, per the text of the article. Given that this annual competition spans nearly half the year, every year, it does not make sense to apply Wikipedia's criteria for events to this subject, since again, it is not an event. However, even if these criteria were to be applied to the subject of this article, it would pass the notability test yet again:

Does it have lasting effects? Certainly--see the sources, particularly the Hong Kong journalistic sources, which suggest the International Mathematical Modeling Challenge will catalyze modern math curriculum in Hong Kong.
Is there sufficient geographical scope? Simply peruse the list of countries participating in the Challenge: they come from all over the world.
Depth of coverage: addressed in the general notability section above.
Duration of coverage: the news articles cited in the article range from before to during and after the awards ceremony, over a period of many months. This exceeds Wikipedia's requirements.
Diversity of sources: absolutely; see the response to general notability guidelines above.

Wikipedia also has substantial precedent for including articles such as this one. For example, see Interdisciplinary Contest in Modeling and International Mathematical Olympiad.

In sum, it is difficult to understand why this article should be deleted. It has received substantial, lasting coverage from reliable, independent, international news and academic sources. The article is valuable to those interested in learning more about this notable competition, and it certainly does not meet any sort of criteria that might deem it to be unnecessary clutter. As a result, this article is an asset to the Wikipedia community, not a hindrance. Since I am certain the user tagging this article for deletion was acting in good faith, it seems s/he may simply have misunderstood either the subject of the article (particularly given his/her reference to Wikipedia's notability for events guidelines, even though it is not an event) or the extent of its notability and coverage in international news media. For these reasons, I have removed the tag proposing deletion. Immcim2c (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Immcim2c: Thank you for the detailed argumentation. I am still not fully convinced: coverage has to be non-local, for example. I've restored notability tag, pending a WP:3O; feel free to speed this up by putting a request there for comment (otherwise it may take years for someone else to comment here). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, thanks for your reply. Per your suggestion, I've made a request for comment on the 3O page. I certainly don't think the coverage is local -- there is substantial coverage cited on the page from each of 3 continents (Asia, Europe, North America), but we'll see what the third reviewer has to say. On an unrelated point, I saw that you added this to the Mathematics WikiProject. However, that generated a message saying "Please do not use the template WikiProject Mathematics." As a result, I've removed that tag. I also noticed that you added a WikiProject United States tag. This may be the source of your confusion regarding local vs. non-local coverage. Please consult the main article; this is not a US-focused competition, and as is evident in the article, 88% of participants came from outside the United States. 2 U.S. teams worked on the problem last year vs. 60 from Greater China (see main article). It occurred to me that perhaps you are concerned because the article states the competition was founded in Boston, USA, and therefore you believe it is confined to the US, hence your concern about notability and your addition of the WikiProject USA tag. If so, I encourage you to further consult the article, and especially the cited sources, which should dismiss your fears. Since perhaps I have misunderstood your intentions, I did not remove the WikiProject USA tag, but I nevertheless encourage you or anyone else reading this to remove it absent some pressing reason the subject of the article should be considered US-centric. Thanks again for your interest. Immcim2c (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. The question appears to have to do with the notability tag. My personal opinion is to remove the tag because I think that it passes notability. However, in general, the proper way to question notability of an article subject is Articles for Deletion, which is a binding community process. (I am prepared to !vote Keep.) I would also suggest removing the United States tag, because it is international. That is my third opinion. I will be removing the third opinion request. If the question is something else, please restate it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]