Talk:International Conference on Cold Fusion

Substantial Coverage in Multiple Reliable Sources
There was a concern expressed in the nomination for deletion that there was a lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources for the conference itself. I believe the following two references meet that criteria. If anyone concurs, feel free to add material to the article. If anyone disagrees, please point to examples of what is meant by “substantial coverage”.
 * Begley, Sharon “Cold Fusion Isn't Dead, It's Just Withering From Scientific Neglect”, Wall Street Journal, September 3, 2005
 * Haiko Lietz, “The Untold Story of The Cold Fusion”, Telepolis, 31 March 2004--Nowa (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a problem is that these sources (like the others mentioned in the AfD discussion) use the fact of the conference's existence merely as a hook for a wider piece on the cold fusion story, rather than providing any kind of in-depth coverage/analysis of the conference itself. Alexbrn talk 11:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well now, this is an interesting dilemma. Based on the above references, it appears that the notability of the conference is primarily in it's relationship to the larger cold fusion story.  I'm afraid it's beyond my ability to resolve that dilemma.--Nowa (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That being the case, a good way forward would be to have a section on the conference within the CF article (not a standalone article) ... Alexbrn talk 00:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be fine by me. Do you have any thoughts on how we should go about it?--Nowa (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup: delete this article, salvage a few good sentences from it, and include them in the CF article. Alexbrn talk 01:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you've lost me. "Salvaging a few good sentences" does not sound like a constructive way forward. I would prefer if we could agree on text to be included in cold fusion first and then propose a merge.--Nowa (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The Goodstein and Simon stuff is good and can stay, everything else is poorly-sourced and needs to go. I think that gives us a few salvagable sentences. Merge that into the CF article and we have a reasonable way forward I think. Alexbrn talk 04:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was recently pointed to a way of doing this -- namely create a SUB-page of CF. The entire current ICCMNS/ICCF page could be moved to it. (I'll have to look up the details -- there are options for having it indexed or not indexed on Wiki as a whole). I looked at several articles on conferences. Some, like SIGGRAPH -- which, incidentally, grew from a minority group to a major conference -- DO include a list of past locations. Alanf777 (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Renaming
Besides the ongoing AfD debate, I propose renaming the article to International Conferences on Cold Fusion. The name "International Conference on Cold Fusion" appears to be much more notable than the "official" name of the most recent conferences. Any thoughts? --Edcolins (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree - if the article stays, this was what is was known as in its heyday, and so is more pertinent I think. Alexbrn talk 15:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Edcolins (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

source for the publisher "International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science"
 19:55, 14 January 2015 Edcolins Undid revision 642433982 by 84.106.11.117


 * chairman of the organising committee M Srinivasan said the conference was being organised by the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (www.iscmns.org) in collaboration with the Indian Physics Association (IPA) and the Indian Nuclear Society (INS).



It is also mentioned on conferance page and mentioned on proceedings index

84.106.11.117 (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have updated the article accordingly. --Edcolins (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)