Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Congress on Medieval Studies


 * 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. If the article isn't improved in a reasonable amount of time, it can run for AfD again. Sr13 06:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

International Congress on Medieval Studies

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

This article doesn't show notability, scope of conference (are there other international mideval conferences? Are there not?), etc. This article needs drastic additions to meet wp standards. However, the reason I am putting this on WP:AFD is because I think it was only made as an ad for the conference, for when people search online for "international congress on Medieval Studies". If this is not the case, and people use this article, and people are planning on making it better, than by all means vote for keep. --Ceas webmaster 13:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are (I think) three major conferences: this one, the one in Leeds, and the Medieval Academy of America conference. If someone is googling for "international congress on Medieval Studies", they are probably looking for this one anyway, since it is directed to a more popular audience (lots of Tolkien and Harry Potter, and movie nights, and Terry Jones was there in 2005, for example). It is famous and important, if you are a medievalist... Adam Bishop 04:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: I agree the article could use some expansion work, and I shall see about contributing at least some of it myself. I think that, it being the largest gathering of medieval scholars in the world, and being the site where a number of medieval organizations have an opportunity to get together for business meetings, gives it a minor notability. Munion 01:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep though in remarkable need of wikifying. there will be sources, for people go there to publish things. DGG 04:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Comment - it just really needs some sources, doesn't it?-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 06:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * yes, and "unsourced" has never been one of the reasons to delete. DGG 21:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscuthbert (talk • contribs) 02:38, 17 June 2007
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 08:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 08:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak, weak keep. This is a major academic conference. But does it get non-trivial coverage from independent sources? There must be media coverage related to the Tolkien/Harry Potter aspects of the conference, at least. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have lately expanded the article and added some citations. Perhaps this will help alleviate some concerns? The major sources I could find include a couple newspapers, the Congress' website (including program and scheudle), and a number of blogs. Munion 18:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- the subject of the article is a strong keep: the Kalamazoo conference is a major part of medieval studies in America, its history, milestones, criticisms, etc. would make an excellent topic; plus there's no other place to merge this information to given that many small organizations have their national meetings there, and it's more important than everything else its organizing group does. However, the current text of the article does read far too much like an advertisement, so in that sense, I don't think deletion of the current form of the article would be a terrible loss for Wikipedia and its readers.
 * 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.