Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language Creation Conference

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 No consensus. Avi 15:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language Creation Conference

~~Non-notable conference on constructed languages, only refs cited are the conference's own pages (no independent sources)~~, ~~conflict of interest (User:Saizai runs the conference)~~ --Miskwito 22:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as nom --Miskwito 22:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, due to lack of other sources, but COI is not a reason to delete. Ab e g92contribs 22:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep; "independent" sources is not required AFAIK (just 'original' sources), and fwiw if you look at the 'press' page on the website you'll see other sources that refer to it, review it, etc; I didn't feel it appropriate to add that (as the pages for other ling conferences I looked at don't have that), but I don't object to doing so if it's felt to be necessary. COI also is not AFAIK relevant for a VfD; sure I run it, and made a page for it, but how is that relevant to the quality of the article itself? Further, it is notable in that is the ONLY conference on constructed languages; this is equivalent to any other niche area of linguistics. --Sai Emrys 06:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, it's not a reason for deletion, sorry about that. I've struck it out above. I think if independent sources could be cited from the press page they definitely should be; I'd probably ask that this nomination be withdrawn if they were. --Miskwito 22:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quoting WP:SOURCE: "Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as: [...] the article is not based primarily on such sources.". So this really needs third party sources or to be deleted per wikipedia's verifiability criteria. Dewrad 09:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sources:[1] [2] [3] [4]. It is also written about in a book (in press, coming out around the end of the year) by Sarah Higley.
~~Most of my misgivings have been addressed.~~ I still have concerns about the notability, ~~but not enough to warrant deletion right now.~~ ~~So I, like, retract my nomination. Or whatever. I don't know how that works...~~ --Miskwito 22:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the AfD discussion should continue. WP:COI is not a criterion for deletion, but it is a big red flag regarding notability. The policies and guidelines regarding attribution are a bit in flux at the moment, but we have always required independent non-self-published sourcing. Listservs and blog type sources are not enough. The conference may well be sufficiently sourceable and notable when the book is published, but WP is not a crystal ball. Sai - if the article is deleted, then you might consider keeping a copy in your user space to perhaps recreate after the book comes out. I would also recommend getting a non-affiliated editor to look at it first to avoid the COI issue.--Kubigula (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The book cited is not being self-published. Also, blog posts have been accepted before as sufficient sources... --Sai Emrys 23:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The book sounds like it would be an appropriate source, when it gets published. I meant that blogs and listservs are considered "self-published" sources as there is no editorial or peer review.--Kubigula (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my vote to abstain for now in light of Kubigula's points. --Miskwito 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Constructed language for now. Once the book is published and/or if LCC2 attracts some media attention it might merit having an article on its own. But for now I think a mention in the main conlang article is more appropriate. PubliusFL 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no objection to the merge suggestion above though). Who knows where it will go in the future, but for now it seems to be a very very small fan gathering. The "attendees" page on the official site lists a whopping 32 people, and the budget page says the event made $908. No offence, but I've had yard sales bigger than that. 60 unique Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--Sonjaaa 01:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think most academic conferences with an international attendance, held in regular succession and known by a common name are notable . They ll produce a publication, and are normally referred to by many outside references. DGG

Comment I would support merging with the main article in lieu of deletion. But I don't think that would be as good as having a separate page for it. --Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 06:22, 31 March 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.