Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information


 * 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   keep. There is a strong consensus against deleting this article. Among those opposing deletion, there is no consensus as to whether a merged or separate article is to be preferred. However, this is normal editing decision, and one that can be made outside of the deletion process. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

just another annual conference. hardly any third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep just another notable series of conferences--but sources needed, to show, among other things, that it's widely cited.    DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * please provide sources then. LibStar (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. You yourself, LibStar, have provided 800 sources with the Find sources scholar link above. Even just the first paper listed there, "Rhetorical structure theory", is cited by more than 2,000 other sources (that even poor old Google scholar knows of). Harold Philby (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:PSTS. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Association for Logic, Language and Information. I think it is ridiculous that the conference article is longer than the parent association's article, and both are very short. On the other hand, 833 Google Scholar hits and 233 Google Books hits suggests that this is not "just another conference." I have done this sort of search on many such conferences here on Wikipedia, and this one has an order of magnitude more hits than the average. Also, the name of the conference is not an extension of the name of the association ("Association for Logic, Language and Information Summer School") and so is a valid redirecting search term. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I tried to find reliable sources but failed. I think one of the main problems is that – as the name suggests – ESSLLI is primarily a summer school (≈ somewhat similar to a bunch of university-level courses) and not a traditional academic conference (≈ researchers telling about their latest work). Therefore ESSLLI is not listed in conference rankings, conference impact factor lists, collections of bibliographies, etc. Sure, there are workshops in addition to the courses, but I think none of the workshops alone is particularly notable, and hence it isn't easy to find any reliable sources for them, either. I found several blog posts that seem to give the impression that ESSLLI could be notable, but naturally we should have something non-WP:SPS to satisfy WP:V. — Miym (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The burden of proof is on those seeking to retain the content to provide sources. Blithely saying "sources needed" is not sufficient. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Association for Logic, Language and Information per Abductive.--Chris Johnson (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If I may expand on my reason for wanting a merge; Stifle is correct in asking for secondary sources. But the conference has so many mentions in primary sources, and its name is sufficiently different from its parent, that a merge is warranted. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Association for Logic, Language and Information (as a version of keep). This series of conferences may be notable enough for its own page. However, I don't see the need for a separate article at the moment since there is plenty of room in the main page. TerriersFan (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —TerriersFan (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: nomination overlooks 800 or so independent third party reliable sources at Google scholar alone. I can understand the name of the conference being misleading to a casual reader, however those academic sources are not citing remedial courses in a Logic 101 Summer School or such like: check out a couple of links. Burden of proof does lie on sourcing content at Wiki, but something is not unproven simply because the cited evidence has not been scrutinised.
 * No merge: expanding information on the conference is probably easier than expanding information on the society, dang it! I wholeheartedly agree the association responsible for the conference is more significant in an abstract encyclopedic kind of way. However, constrained as we are to reliable sources, and precluded from original research, the conference is the most documented and noted element of the association's work, history and impact. It shouldn't be like that, but it is.
 * So I propose no merger, to avoid having an article on the association which would end up looking like a tail wagging a dog: info re the conference is more easily obtained and expanded and will appear to have undue attention.
 * PS I'm not around often, so I only discovered this discussion by chance. Might it be a thought to contact whoever created an article when proposing it for deletion? She might know something that might otherwise be overlooked. Not in this case though. People seem to have most points covered.
 * As far as the subject area of Formal semantics is concerned, here's a reliable source, Kai von Fintel, on how to establish notability of a paper, author, conference, etc. in this particular field: "At least for our small field, I think the overall lesson is that to find out about the status of a paper or and author, one shouldn’t ask the indexing services, but just ask the experts." Harold Philby (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete They're a conference; they publish Proceedings; the Proceedings sometimes show up in bibliographies - hence the 800 citations. How this constitutes notability is beyond me, especially if this barren list of venues is the only verifiable content. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Couldn't this be a good reason to merge/redirect? 800 low-grade mentions? Abductive  (reasoning) 17:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be a good reason to have the redirect; but there is no useful information to merge, except that the summer conferences exist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah! So you mean Expand don't you? In which case we are in agreement.
 * Who established this conference and why? Which institutions support the conference? How many people attend? Which notable academics have given addresses? What topics and venues have been proposed for the future? Have there been any controversies? But then again, we're not writing a human interest story for the popular media.
 * Even the list of past venues is genuine information. "Barren" (I presume meant to be read as "boring") is not a disqualification under notability surely, that would be kind of subjective, what? Verifiable dates and times in summary form, so boring it's like reading an encyclopedia entry. ;) Harold Philby (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You may expand it within the parent association's article. As I pointed out, both are very very short right now. If the expanded content becomes vey large, splitting it out again may be an option. User:Harold Philby is mistaking lots of mentions in primary sources for notability, which requires secondary sources about the summer school. Abductive  (reasoning) 14:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Association for Logic, Language and Information as the best alternative to deletion. Sources, such as this, would aid in a merge. Cunard (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2009 (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.