Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campus in Multidisciplinary Perception and Intelligence of Albacete 2006

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Campus in Multidisciplinary Perception and Intelligence of Albacete 2006

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

Academic conferences are routine and not inherently notable. Our best guide is WP:EVENT, which this conference fails by a mile. There is simply not enough coverage and no evidence that this conference in particular had any enduring historical impact (unlike, for example, the Dartmouth Conferences it commemorated). Lagrange 613 16:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—While I agree with the nom that most academic conferences are routine and non-notable, there are exceptions to the rule and this might be one of them. I've made a cleanup pass on the article's citations. There are three journals that did special issues; that's routine and I don't think it contributes to notability. There was also a fair amount of press coverage. That doesn't happen for routine conferences. Whether that's enough to clear the notability bar, ~~I'm not sure~~. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Ok, if I've just spent a half-hour digging up references and I don't really believe it's notable, it's not notable. Changed to delete. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, minor journals will sometimes have special issues showcasing the work from a conference, in lieu of a stand-alone conference proceedings being published. Such special issues can't count toward GNG for the conference because they are not independent of the subject: the (perceived) quality of a conference is bound up with the (perceived) quality of the research presented there. Lagrange 613 01:36, 3 September 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 7 September 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Dartmouth Conferences. This instance of the conferences is not notable on its own but the 50th conference is potentially worthy of mention in the series article. ~KvnG 16:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this really belongs there. This isn't part of a series that includes the Dartmouth Conferences; it's an independent gathering that decided it was commemorating them. Commemorations demonstrate the perceived influence of the Dartmouth Conferences, so maybe a brief mention (one sentence or less, along with other events that have commemorated them over the years) could be appropriate. A full merge would distract from that article's purpose. Lagrange 613 17:57, 21 September 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.