Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Conference on Artificial Intelligence


 * 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! 07:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Canadian Conference on Artificial Intelligence

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD (albeit not my PROD) was removed by the author. Despite an earlier claim about this being an important conference in Canada, a search failed to find much that was independent. Indeed, there were quite a few hits, but they were all affiliated with the conference or pages by people who participate in the conference. It doesn't help that the article claims that around 500 people attend annually, which for a country like Canada, appears to be rather insignificant. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I find it strange that the Graphics Interface conference (a sister of the AI conference) has a Wikipedia page. The AI conference is 10x bigger. How is this not an important conference in Canada? Some of the brightest researchers present their work here. All research is published in http://www.springer.com/series/1244 and selected works are published in Computational Intelligence. This is not a Naruto convention, so perhaps you would not understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathewk1300 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What is needed on Wikipedia is significant, independent coverage by reliable sources. Perhaps the convention you mentioned earlier has received the coverage needed to satisfy notability guidelines, which is why it has an article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I will put sources on the original page. In the meantime, I will also delete Naruto conference pages as they seem to progress the edges of society too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathewk1300 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Mathewk1300, the personal attacks aren't necessary. Narutolovehinata5 simply noticed this article, conducted a search for references and (upon finding insufficient references to justify an article per our inclusion criteria) nominated it for deletion. There's no need for childish references to his username. It won't save this article. Also, have a read of WP:OSE.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 11:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can't find enough to suggest this passes WP:GNG though I accept there might be scientific publications that could provide us with more. Happy to consider those but for now, we're not quite there in my view.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 11:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I did a search using Google News and Google Scholar as well and sadly I couldn't find anything on Google News. As for Google Scholar, there are indeed hits, but these are for papers made during the conference, not about the conference. For a conference that claims to have been existence for 50 years, and in an earlier version of the article, claiming to be a leading conference on artificial intelligence on Canada, the lack of coverage from independent sources is startling. And it's not like it's a niche event either: with an event going on for that long, there should at least be some coverage somewhere by now. But there's little to none. Perhaps the final nail in the coffin is this: the event claims a yearly attendance of 500 people. That's pretty small, and given Canada's population, size, economy, and other factors, it could be said to be quite poor, as the event appears to be a national conference, not a local one where a small attendance like that would be understandable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the additional explanation.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This is disgusting. This event has been around for 50 years. While your at it, also delete Graphics Interface please. I will also give you a list of other related events that you can delete as well. Stop this bias on Wikipedia.
 * I hate to say it, but please read WP:OLDAGE. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And, again, you seem to be confusing ordinary deletion discussion processes (like WP:CONSENSUS) with some ideological attack on your favourite conference. It isn't. Dozens of things are nominated for deletion every day. We have specific inclusion criteria and longevity isn't one of them. The fact that other related stuff exists is not an inclusion criteria either. Find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and we'll talk.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (prattle)  @ 21:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (rap)  @ 21:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You are right - Perhaps it would be a better idea to make a single page for all three conferences. The AI conference is combined with The Canadian Conference on Graphics Interface and the Canadian Conference on "Computer Vision and Robotics Conference". This is actually a tri-conference that has been around exactly 50 years (since 1964). Please see this: http://aigicrv.org/aigicrv2015/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathewk1300 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge - This page alone is not noteworthy, but if it can be merged with similar ones, as noted above, then that course should be considered. Kierzek (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.