Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language Creation Society (2nd nomination)


 * 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 and salt J04n(talk page) 19:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Language Creation Society
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable organization, yet again recreated, quite possibly at the behest of individuals with a financial connection to the Language Creation Society (albeit in the context of a Wiki-Ed supported course at the University of British Columbia).

The only thing that has changed since the last AfD and Deletion review/Log/2016 May 24 is that LCS helped bankroll a documentary (co-produced by the instructor for the aforementioned UBC/Wiki-Ed course instructor) which may have featured LCS to some extent. Because LCS provided funding to the film, I argue that it is irrelevant for the purposes of establishing notability. That LCS got a lawyer to write and file an amicus brief in their name in a constructed language lawsuit last year was discussed at length in the DRV, and makes no difference whatsoever.

I have no idea why this was accepted at AfC. This former student group is blatantly inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Even if you look at ghits, there are fewer than there were at the last AfD: I found 164 in the last AfD, and there are 145 ghits today. For an organization founded at Berkeley in the 2000s that primarily attracts heavy internet users, all or virtually all the coverage that it should ever be expected to receive should be online. No matter how niche this organization is, if it is notable within our standards, there should be something, anything online. There is not. There never has been.

Note to !voters: It has been noted that the WP:SET-based statement above may rely on faulty methodology as Google currently functions. It is my understanding that at the time of the previous AfD, the methodology functioned as expected. Even so, the WP:SIGCOV arguments that have been made throughout this discussion do not depend on ghits.

Note to reviewing admin and other !voters: I fully expect that current and former LCS executives and board members will come out of the woodwork to !vote on this AfD. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly meets GNG. I reviewed the draft and moved it to mainspace. I did not do so at the "behest" of anyone; nor do I have any connection - financial or otherwise - to the LCS. A dose of AGF would not go amiss. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody was talking about you. As to it "clearly" meeting GNG, by what standard? There is no significant coverage anywhere that is specifically about this organization. They rode the coattails of the guy who made a constructed language for Game of Thrones, which did get significant coverage, and got a few passing mentions themselves. Notability is not inherited. You should know this. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to have had it out for this page for some time, M endaliv, and I wonder why... Seems fishy. In your comments throughout this page, you've said things that are either inaccurate, misleading, or a bit defensive, and I'm going to point them out here, so that, at the very least, maybe a less biased editor can step in and make a neutral evaluation. For what it's worth, though I don't know how I can verify this (if there's a way, you can let me know), I am David J. Peterson, the creator of Dothraki. For starters, on this comment, it would seem odd to say the Language Creation Society rode my coattails, since they were the ones that got the Dothraki job. The LCS was actually contracted by HBO, and then the LCS subcontracted the job to me, when I won the contest the LCS set up—just as it did with the movie Noah and the winner of that contest. Before that, neither the LCS nor I had any kind of notability outside the conlanging community, and when it was announced—going all the way back to the HBO press release—the LCS and myself were mentioned at the same time, just as both myself and the LCS are in the end credits throughout the first season of Game of Thrones. Throughout the entire time, the LCS continued to do what it was founded to do: serve as a resource for conlangers, promote conlanging, and put on the Language Creation Conference. Even if it were riding my coattails (coattails that never would have been there without the LCS, mind), what would they be riding them to? To continuing to do exactly what they were doing just fine beforehand? Or was it all a clever scheme to achieve Wikipedia notability? The fact of the matter is that since its inception ten years ago, the LCS has done what it was founded to do, but has also contributed significantly to the recent history of language creation. Given that language creation is, I would still argue, a very young art, its contributions are significant enough to make it noteworthy. David J Peterson (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC) This editor has a conflict of interest about the subject. Winged Blades Godric 14:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  J  947  (c · m)  00:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  J  947  (c · m)  00:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Several of the citations are internal stuff, like the organisation's pages about its members.  Most of the others are sources without established reputations for accuracy in the field of linguistics, whether popular websites or news sources whose editors are responsible for publishing the latest things, not the things that are long-term important.  [Note that citation #18 is a news source; someone cited the EZproxy login page, for some bizarre reason, but it's really an article entitled "Judge asked to rule Klingon is a language" from the 2016-04-29 issue of the National Post.]  The only items that look like actually reliable sources are OCLC 781675594 and 941954806, but both of them are being used to support side items; neither one appears to talk about the LCS itself.  Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. This is the same problem that came up in the last AfD and the DRV. The claims of notability are solely coattail-riding on Dothraki. The situation here is essentially the same as the example in WP:N of something that is not WP:SIGCOV: Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band. While Peterson may not be as famous as Bill Clinton, it's pretty evident from the sources and ghits that LCS is about as notable as Clinton's high school jazz band. Much of the concerted activity going on in the article as I type this, led by LCS-affiliated editors, seems focused on cramming links to any website anywhere that uses the phrase "language creation society" into the article. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, you seem to have an utterly bizarre definition of coattail-riding. Bill Clinton is famous for his work as a politician. Presumably, his high school band did little to launch his political career, and so Bill Clinton being a part of the high school band wouldn't make the band noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia page. By using this analogy, though, you make it sound as if the LCS and the Dothraki language had nothing to do with one another—as if I was an LCS member for a couple years and then later I somehow found myself creating the Dothraki language. If this is what you believe, then I'll tell you it's plainly inaccurate. If it's not, then you're trying to mislead those who don't know any better. The LCS was actually the one contracted by HBO, and then the LCS subcontracted to the winner of the contest. Had I died, or done a bad job, it would have been on the LCS to replace me. I honestly thought this was common knowledge. If it's not, I'll go dig through the transcripts of one of the fifty interviews I've done where I've said as much and link to it. The way this went, as I've said many, many times, is the producers of Game of Thrones wanted a languages, so they contacted Arika Okrent, because she had a book out (In the Land of Invented Languages), and she sent them directly to Sai, the president of the Language Creation Society, whom she'd met two years earlier at the Language Creation Conference. Sai, as president of the LCS, then negotiated directly with HBO, signed the contract on behalf of the LCS, and put together the contest himself to find a conlanger to create the language. You cannot discuss the created languages of Game of Thrones without the LCS. The conversation starts there. They hardly rode my coattails. David J Peterson (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC) This editor has a conflict of interest about the subject. Winged Blades Godric 14:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment-At edit-a-thons I tell newbies that the first choice is not necessarily to create an article if there's a broader article to which a paragraph can properly fit. That failing, the first and second considerations are :
 * 1) Notability. You must give one citation that's in an independent WP:RS and is all or mostly about the subject, not just mentioning it in passing. Two or three of those can much strengthen the case.
 * 2) Fact. Several citations. You must cite each important fact to a RS but it can be a mention in passing. Making a dozen won't much strengthen the case.
 * I see plenty of citations, but unfortunately we lack a standard way of flagging the ones that are indicating notability. Which ones are carrying the notability burden? Jim.henderson (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's not a one that indicates notability. Looking to the DRV, the claim was that their amicus brief in a lawsuit did it... which is absolute garbage if you look at any of the sources LCS-affiliated people themselves have provided in support of this argument. Not a single one provides WP:SIGCOV. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: A notable subject mentioned by many popular culture sources. John Cummings (talk) 01:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Mentions" do not satisfy notability. There must be significant coverage. This burden has not been met. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Precisely what Mendaliv said.Mentions, out of which many are in quasi-reliable sources, don't matter.Significant covg., in a non-trivial manner matters. Winged Blades Godric 14:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: As an encyclopedia, WP is a place where readers come to find additional information on topics mentioned elsewhere. Being that LCS has multiple mentions in mainstream news stories (even if a number are as a connection to David J. Peterson, etc.), those wanting more information on it would hopefully turn to WP as a source for additional information. Its notability comes from its mention in such articles in print and online, its mention in multiple articles as part of the Klingon lawsuit (e.g., NPR citations added to article), its sponsorship of a documentary film, its mention in OCLC 952721666 (p.35) (currently cited in article) which includes "Not surprisingly, it was this society that HBO contacted when the latter wanted to flesh out both the Dothraki language and the Valyrian languages for Game of Thrones...", and the fact that Fiat Lingua is cited within WorldCat with its ISSN 2156-566X. [Full Disclosure: I am currently listed in the LCS Officers emeriti but have had no official function since 2015.) Hamaxides (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC) This editor has a conflict of interest about the subject. Winged Blades Godric 14:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the notability of the documentary is highly questionable... if it hadn't been AfD'd with no consensus very recently I'd be nominating it as well. That it is mentioned on IMDB is tantamount to saying that because another subject has a Wikipedia article, this subject is notable: WP:NOTINHERITED. The other issues—Dothraki and the lawsuit—were dealt with in the DRV over a year ago: They do not cause LCS to become notable. The other argument, that because LCS is mentioned in multiple places, is both overstating the case (see my note above about the absolute paucity of Google hits on the LCS) and misses the point: Mentions are not enough, there must be WP:SIGCOV. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As to the number of hits, a Google search for "language creation society" -site:conlang.org -intitle:conlang -fiatlingua (just to weed out some self-referential ones and those with conlang in the title of the page) retrieves 56,400 results. Hamaxides (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC) This editor has a conflict of interest about the subject. Winged Blades Godric 14:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's not how you do a google hits count: You don't take the number from the first page, which is an estimated number, and in low-relevance topics like LCS, always massively overstates it. You don't even have to take out the self-referential things: There are fewer than 200 Google hits about the Language Creation Society. Period. See WP:SET for how to do this. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 06:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My bad, and thank you for the link to WP:SET. Hamaxides (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and Salt For the exact same reasons it's been deleted/draftified before. There is no point to having the article if it keeps getting re-created nearly identical to how it was previously. I urge any admin who closes this to look at all the previously deleted versions and actually see if there has been ANY improvement. If not, salt it. --Tarage (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Conlanging is a small field, but LCS is well known within it. By its nature most conlanging discussion is ephemeral; it's just not going to produce a lot of newspaper articles.  If you want to know if it's well known within conlanging, you have to ask conlangers.   The fact that LCS is directly responsible for Dothraki, one of the best known conlangs, in a major media production, is notable enough.  (If a novelist becomes famous after winning a prize, would people say the prize is non-notable?)  Zompist (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)  This editor has a conflict of interest about the subject. Winged Blades Godric 14:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * LCS is not directly responsible for Dothraki. All they did was select a person to create the language, who incidentally appears to have been notable already. Your analogy about books and authors, as well, fails: WP:NOTINHERITED. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless someone else has taken the user name "Zompist" on Wikipedia, that is Mark Rosenfelder (cf. Zompist.com), who, by the way, took part in the Dothraki competition. If you had any understanding at all of the conlanging community, you'd understand what a huge deal it is that Mark Rosenfelder is stepping into this discussion to defend the LCS. That aside, it's also a bit comical that you, someone who clearly doesn't know how the Dothraki competition went down at all, judging by your comments, is correcting an actual competitor on who is or isn't responsible for the Dothraki language. I also find it quite amusing that you're now suggesting I was notable already, since I had my own Wikipedia page deleted several times the first time someone tried to add it after Game of Thrones had aired. If only I could have shared this comment of yours back then! To put it bluntly, no, I was not notable, full stop. I was well known in certain corners of the conlanging community, but not as well as known as, for example, Zompist.com, or even the LCS. I'd love to see what "keep" arguments you would produce for a Wikipedia page on me circa 2009. If you see my comment above, I'd like to know what counts as directly responsible. No, the LCS did not create the words or grammar of Dothraki, but they were directly responsible in the literal sense that they were directly responsible to HBO for it living up to HBO's standards. In fact, they were quite literally responsible for the language, in the simplest sense. It was the LCS's decision to have a competition to have someone else create it—something they were in no way required to do. David J Peterson (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Where did you come from User:Zompist? You haven't edited Wikipedia in OVER A YEAR and somehow you are magically here to contest this deletion? Who told you about this AFD? --Tarage (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WHY would editing history matter? Should this AFD be kept a secret from people who are interested in this topic so you can win the day? So much for wikipedia as a collaborative effort. -CESchreyer (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It matters because the majority of keep !voters in this discussion have known offline connections or are conlangers. The complete lack of on-wiki communication that led to the recreation of this article and the inexplicable acceptance of the AfC thirty minutes after its submission (along with an apology to the article creator, who hadn't asked for its recreation or submitted it for AfC on-wiki, and as far as I can tell hasn't done anything on-wiki since its deletion). AfC's backlog is massive right now. Even if we assume the recreation in userspace was via IRC request, why was this article walked to the front of the AfC queue when there are other drafts waiting months to be approved? What the hell is going on here? —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 06:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "the inexplicable acceptance of the AfC thirty minutes after its submission " That' is in no way "inexplicable". I queried the article's deletion, and in a reply to my post that it had been recreated in draft, so reviewed it. So much for your bogus "complete lack of on-wiki communication" claim. Like I said above, you need to start assuming good faith instead of throwing around such snide insinuations in this manner. And I apologised to the artcle's creator because some editors have treated them in the same shamefully abysmal manner in which you and another are behaving here.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Language Creation Society is an internationally known not-for-profit that has contributed to raising awareness about the art of language invention. Some of the most well-known conlangers in the world are members of the society or have presented at their conferences. Bias towards conlangs in general has been an issue in the public and in academia, but more and more people are accepting conlangs as legitimate languages which we can learn from for a number of reasons (as a simply google scholar search will tell you) and this attempt to delete this page, which is the main source of information and history on the world of conlanging on-line speaks to a bias against this topic more than the guidelines of wikipedia. CESchreyer (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe some reading of WP:AADD? Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 14:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Concern How is it that every single keep vote so far has been either from an editor who directly worked on the article or from editors who have not edited Wikipedia in over a year? This seems awfully fishy to me. --Tarage (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do explain to me why my keep !vote is "awfully fishy". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Note:Students chose the articles they wished to edit on their own and I as the instructor of the course absolutely did not ask them to write this article. We did see it had been deleted several times, but as deleted content is removed we couldn't see why this was as we are not administrators. The only thing that has changed since the last AfD and Deletion review/Log/2016 May 24 is that LCS helped bankroll a documentary (co-produced by the instructor for the aforementioned UBC/Wiki-Ed course instructor) which may have featured LCS to some extent. It is not "to some extent" entire scenes are filmed at the LCC6, which is hosted by the LCS. Because LCS provided funding to the film, I argue that it is irrelevant for the purposes of establishing notability. The film was also supported by a Canadian federal funding agency (SSHRC) who knew that the majority of footage had been filmed at LCC6 and this grant greatly outweighs the funding provided by LCS (page 2). http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/transparency-transparence/disclosure-divulgation/grants-subventions/2015/july_2015.pdf That LCS got a lawyer to write and file an amicus brief in their name in a constructed language lawsuit last year was discussed at length in the DRV, and makes no difference whatsoever. Many articles that refer to the brief, also mention the LCS and their goals and various pursuits, which illustrates notability with many minor citations (see comment below). For the record, not a board member. -CESchreyer (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's not okay in the slightest. That's called canvasing and we have rules specifically against that. Also PLEASE stop spamming your comments all over the page in a haphazard way. You are not helping your case by making it completely unreadable. I had to clean it up quite a bit to get it to this point. --Tarage (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: I don't see any suggestion of canvassing in CESchreyer's comment above. Agreed that it wasn't in the format it should have been (, in the interests of clarity, AfD discussions customarily have replies below the entire comment - so if you want to reply to me here, you'd normally do one more indent below the last line of my comment and then reply, rather than interleaving your replies with my original comments, which makes it very hard for admins to read the discussion and judge consensus), but all the comment points to is a choice of article for the Wiki-Ed course. Perhaps a choice which should have been taken with more input from admins who could see the deleted content, but a choice nonetheless. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure Tarage was referring to this: CESchreyer (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC) WHY would editing history matter? Should this AFD be kept a secret from people who are interested in this topic so you can win the day? So much for wikipedia as a collaborative effort. Unfortunately, CESchreyer's threading seems to have messed things up quite severely, and Tarage had to untangle things. As to the comment, CESchreyer's response was to Tarage asking where these mystery editors were coming from. Given we even had the creator of Dothraki come to the talk page the other day to personally oppose the G4 deletion, it is pretty clear that the LCS-affiliated people on Wikipedia are talking amongst themselves about this. AGF is not a suicide pact, and the Wikipedia community is not stupid. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 08:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You did hear from me, and you're going to keep hearing from me if you use false or misleading statements as proof. You've repeatedly claimed the LCS is riding my coattails to fame. If they come to defend this claim, you decry them for being interested parties trying to sway the conversation. I'm the one who should be able to come in here and set the record straight. It's clear as day to me you haven't got the slightest clue how the Dothraki job happened, despite the fact that it's not a secret. That's no crime, but acting as if you do know, and then using that as ammunition to get the LCS Wikipedia article deleted is something I can't stand for. If you want to talk about sources, fine, but you cannot speak with any kind of authority about the LCS's involvement in Game of Thrones. David J Peterson (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Extreme Concern We have admitted COI issues with both the creation of this article and voting to keep it. I HIGHLY recommend that an administrator step in to deal with this, because I sure as hell can't. --Tarage (talk) 08:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Admin Note, If you have evidence of sockpuppeting, then take it to WP:SPI.  Otherwise kindly assume good faith and refute the arguments rather than the arguer.  Constructive input is welcome from all at AFD, including new and returning editors.  The closing admin will have the savvy to judge the merit of the arguments made by editors here.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC).
 * Yeah, to be fair, I don't think there's socking happening here. CESchreyer said on her user talk earlier that she had complained on Twitter that the LCS page got deleted. It looks like some in the conlanging scene picked up on that. I don't think there was an intention to canvas in violation of policy, more annoyance. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 11:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I never said socking. If anything this is meat puppetry and offsite canvasing. Take it as you will. --Tarage (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me be a little more blunt then. Your constant bludgeoning of this point, complete with edit summaries like this is unhelpful, and borderline disruptive.  Your concerns are noted.  Please stop repeatedly bombarding this discussion with them.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC).


 * Keep, per User:Pigsonthewing and others. (And, for the record, I have no connection to the LCS other than a broad interest in languages plus I'm an editor of something like 15 years, as if that matters) I'm more concerned that Tarage and Mendaliv seem to have an obsessive dislike for this article than I am that some editors are !voting while on a wikibreak. — OwenBlacker (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no WP:SIGCOV here. No keep !voter has even come close to addressing this beyond claiming that LCS is notable because the person who created Dothraki is notable. Come on. Policy-based arguments, please. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 09:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are seriously going to tell me with a straight face that an editor who hasn't edited in over a year is going to randomly come here and vote keep, you think I am far more stupid than I am, and I am insulted. I actually don't have a strong opinion about this article, but I do about the process, which is being violated in new and troubling ways with every vote. --Tarage (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Language creation is a small field, and a young art. The LCS has made significant contributions to an artform that has only been recognized as such—if at all—for the past 10-15 years. This incarnation of the article was created by a student who may not have had all the best sources at hand, but for that I refer to WP:NOTCLEANUP. I'd love to hear from neutral parties, to let those who are making this page know what specifically needs more sourcing. The notability of the LCS at this point shouldn't be in question. David J Peterson (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC) This editor has a conflict of interest about the subject. Winged Blades Godric 14:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing from your IP and manner of writing that you're David J. Peterson again (based on the now-deleted comment that was at Talk:Language Creation Society by a similar IPv6 address). This isn't a matter of sourcing: It's been clearly established that there are no sources to establish LCS's notability. We're talking about a former student organization created in the mid-2000s at one of the most technologically-connected universities on the planet, and a practice (conlanging) which has deep roots in listservs and web forums (and probably newsgroups, for the conlangers of that era). Notability needs to be established by reliable sources, and the reliable sources do not bear out LCS's notability. And for a topic like LCS, where virtually everyone involved is clearly highly web-savvy and techno-savvy, and has been long before most people became so, it is not only unlikely, it is downright preposterous that there are reliable sources demonstrating significant coverage, within Wikipedia's standards, that are both offline and not clearly indicated as existing in the online information. And given we've had at least five LCS-affiliated editors in these deletion discussions over the past two years, I find it even more preposterous that none of them have produced any evidence that any reliable sources demonstrating the requisite significant coverage exist. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that "started as student group" was grounds for disqualification for an organization. Honestly, did you read what you wrote there? This is embarrassing! You have points worth considering throughout this thread, but have surrounded them with fluff (e.g. the LCS starting as a student organization), nonsense (e.g. the LCS being founded at "one of the most technologically-connected universities on the planet", I mean are you serious?! Who do you think is still even a part of the organization from those days, outside the founder?), hyperbole (e.g. the LCS "bankrolling" the Conlanging Documentary. Google "Conlanging The Art of Crafting Tongues Kickstarter"), and outright lies (e.g. my being already notable before winning the Dothraki job). I pointed this out above, but you conveniently ignored those points. Based on your history, you clearly have either a vendetta against the LCS, or against it having a page on Wikipedia. I've plead for neutral users to come and comment, and thankfully they have. I hope, though, that they'll come to their own conclusions, and provide their own arguments—ones that don't rely on tactics such as these. DavidJPeterson (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete--I was looking at this for some time and Mendaliv and Nyttend's argument completely convince me.The closing sysop is cautioned to strongly weigh the keep arguments in light of meatpuppetry and/or offwiki collusion.I also note that none of the keep !voters including the quite-experienced ACC-reviewer has bothered to elaborate on how the article passes GNG. Winged Blades Godric 14:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe not offwiki collusion, but (not sure if mentioned before) offwiki canvassing on twitter has occured, and is probably responsible for a lot of the people coming. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete somewhat reluctantly as I am (personally and professionally) interested in human languages, constructed or otherwise. The society just doesn't have significant coverage in reliable independent sources; I won't repeat the arguments already made above re WP:NOTINHERITED or trivial mentions versus deep coverage, but they are of course relevant. Sorry, but neither WP:GNG nor WP:ORG is met here. --bonadea contributions talk 14:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep — This organization has received two flurries of press coverage, for its role in the creation of Dothraki and for its amicus brief regarding the Klingon language. Coverage of the former extended into in-depth consideration of the conlang-ing community and substantial consideration of the society (see ), while coverage of the latter included discussion of a substantial legal initiative by the organization. Moreover, general purpose texts on the literary imagination (The Routledge Companion to Imaginary Worlds) and linguistics (For the Love of Language: An Introduction to Linguistics) seem to treat the LCS as a genuine resource on the issue.--Carwil (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * None of this is significant coverage of the organization, let alone its activities. The New Republic article you cite has a single sentence mention of LCS. The amicus brief coverage, as well, was just coverage of the underlying lawsuit plus a couple of legal commentators smiling about the use of Klingon script in a court filing. At best, you might have an argument that LCS might be mentioned in the articles on Dothraki and the Klingon language lawsuit. As to the documentary you cite, it does not rise to the level of significant coverage because it is not independent of LCS, as WP:SIGCOV requires. This is without even needing to review the documentary itself because the documentary was partly funded by LCS. The Routledge Companion to Imaginary Worlds is a source I have not yet seen, but I have great doubts as to the depth of coverage provided in that work given the paucity of coverage discovered thus far. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup, pretty much. My thinking is that "genuine resource" means probably just citing it, or at most a mention of it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Per bonadea. Affirming Godric's message; also, those arguments should be discounted on weighed less as not aligning with our policies and guidelines. As far as I can see, the newrepublic piece has only a mention of the society. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: As much as I would like to wave this off there are issues that cannot be overlooked. Primary sources no not advance notability. There just is NOT significant coverage per  policies and guidelines for the subject. Otr500 (talk)
 * Extra comments: There are "corporate" entities at work and claimed or not there is bias. The article is misnamed for starters as it is more about David Peterson or Constructed language ("Conlang") than anything else. The use of too close primary sources indicates that notability is an issue. I have far less of a problem with self-identified COI than paid editors but there is an obvious lack of a neutral point of view. Claiming Language Creation Society is an internationally known not-for-profit (and I support these) then why is the article full of primary and too close to the subject sources? Why are there more attempts (accidental or not) at sourcing things that beat around the bush? The COI that I disdain, is that the article has two embedded lists, proudly proclaiming names of the very people directly involved with the organization that has edited some areas. BIG FLAG. THEN, as if to impune my integrity, a self-disclosed COI editor tries to appeal that I am biased because "this attempt to delete this page, which is the main source of information and history on the world of conlanging on-line speaks to a bias against this topic more than the guidelines of wikipedia". I am glad I do strive to practice civility because this type of insensitive language (some pun intended) makes that little guy with horns on the shoulder scream "DELETE", "SALT with a drum full", and "BLOCK". However, as insinuations seem to be an order of the day, I will simply state that allowing this article to remain in the sorry state it is in, would be a travesty. Take out the embedded officers list and actually explain how, or where, there is this "source of information and history on the world of conlanging on-line".
 * I was a Star Trek fan before many here were born, so I had to look at this long and hard. The futuristic Sci-fi appeal had an allure. It was over and then came "Star Trek: The Next Generation". Michael Dorn (Worf) became the star I liked with the strange language. There are however, problems here beyond a lack of notability of this organization, using these primary sources, does call to question the organization's notability. Not "Conlang" as that is notable and I even glanced at List of language creators. I tagged this article and that one as BLP related. When the names of real people are in an article (and many seem to overlook this) there is automatically extra criteria. It does not matter if the content is flowery, neutral, or derogatory.
 * Take out the biased embedded lists, leaving about 448 words of prose, and what is left? Again, notability is established by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That is the bottom line, having nothing to do with liking or disliking "Conlang", or this article. By-the-way, I like Game of Thrones. Otr500 (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm Sai, founder of the LCS. I find this AfD, and indeed any discussion of the right to exist, to be toxic and therefore do not intend to participate substantively. However, I'll note a few factual points:
 * has repeatedly accused, or insinuated, a WP:NPOV violation without any actual evidence of a single neutrality-affecting edit. I find personally find this insinuation of unethical conduct insulting. On the WP bureaucratic side, Mendaliv's tagging the article with Template:COI violates that template's explicit guidance to the contrary. This appears to be in bad faith. See discussion page.
 * Mendaliv seems to have a hangup about the fact that the LCS was started — by me — as a UC Berkeley student group. How is that relevant? The LCS' transition from student group to independent 501(c)(3) was over a decade ago — and there are enough notable student groups on WP to have a large multi-level category.
 * LCS currently has about 165 members worldwide. None of the officers/directors, except me, were part of the Berkeley group, and none of the current ones, except me, were even part of the founding directors of the LCS. (See last page of last link, the LCS Articles of Incorporation.)
 * Mendaliv's ghits do not match mine. Using an incognito Chrome window, I got ~250 ghits, not the claimed 145. In what world is 250 hits — which include multiple major US & European news outlets, both print and online — not "something, anything online"?
 * LCS did not get prominence via DJP — other way around. I ran LCC1. Arika Okrent heard about it and attended LCC2 as part of research for her book, . GoT producer Dan Weiss contacted her because of the book; she referred him to me (as LCS President), and I ran the competitive job application for Dothraki, which DJP eventually won. (To be absolutely clear, it was thoroughly double-blinded, with validation of the effectiveness of the blinding. He won because his proposal was one of 3 extremely good finalists, not because of his status at the time as LCS Secretary.) That then got famous, because HBO. The LCS has handled many other conlanging jobs since then, though none as high-profile. Also, conlanging jobs are a small part of LCS' function — it's mainly a community support organization, e.g. running the Language Creation Conference, Fiat Lingua journal, resources for the public, etc. Pro conlanging is a thing we do on the side; it's an aspect of our serving as a public resource. We're the only organization in the world for conlangers. People who need conlanging done know to come to us and conlangers who want to try their hand at pro work do too.
 * Dismissing international coverage of the Axanar/Klingon case seems like saying that Citizens United (organization) is non-notable because they're mainly known for Citizens United v. FEC. But, here's press about the organization & its relation to the conlanging community, not just Axanar/Klingon or Dothraki:
 * VICE Motherboard interview with me. See e.g. 17:20–19:15, 26:46–29:50 (parts not about Klingon case or legal issues).
 * Usona Esperanto interview with me and DJP.
 * The LCS has run the Language Creation Conference, in real life, 7 times, in 3 countries, over a decade. The last one had an attendance of about 65 people — on par with small academic conferences.
 * This entire discussion does not appear to make any attempt at suggesting improvements, but rather saying "delete most of it, even when neutrality is not contested, and nothing is left". That's not assuming good faith.
 * Cheers. Sai ¿? ✍ 17:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You seriously overstate LCS's involvement in Axnar. You guys got a lawyer to write an amicus brief. The coverage of that brief is not WP:SIGCOV. Interviews are not independent sources for WP:N purposes. The Language Creation Conference is not a notable event for Wikipedia purposes. Even if it were, notability is not inherited; this article would be redirected there because LCS is not notable. As has been stated repeatedly above and elsewhere, that your organization serves some public purpose makes no difference for notability purposes: What matters is significant coverage in multiple independent sources. See WP:SIGCOV. Even 250ish ghits for an organization founded in the mid-2000s at Berkeley dealing with a practice that is heavily favored by technophiles is the equivalent of virtual nonexistence. It is the antithesis of notability. And it is telling that neither you, nor any of the other LCS affiliates that have been frantically working to save this article over the last day, have been able to produce any sources demonstrating significant coverage without having to claim notability by association. As to the POV issues with both versions of the article, which included substantial WP:UNDUE issues, those have largely been handled by judicious editing by other Wikipedia editors. That you were identified as a connected contributor at the talk page carries no imputation or bad faith. The central issue for this discussion is notability. Conflict of unteeest for the purposes of the deletion discussion happening here is critical context that Wikipedia editors expect. I appreciate your affirmative disclosures in that regard. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * keep i find the lack of AGF in multiple forums troubling, and should not be rewarded. Queen-washington (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment As the person who created this page I would like to clarify several things. Firstly, I would like to thank many of you for your suggestions and support. I am still learning the proper formatting of Wikipedia as I am a new editor. I have no affiliation with the Language Creation Society and I chose to create this page completely of my own accord. I am a student of a member of the LCS but I did not find out about it from her. I am passionate about language and after researching constructed languages I continued to see mentions of the LCS. I have found many sources that discuss it and I felt that a page that brought these sources together could be very helpful for anyone else in a similar situation. I realize that there are specific protocols on Wikipedia but my understanding as a new contributor is that it serves as a resource for the general public and that was my intention. I believe that the choice to not include this page also reveals a bias and many of the initial comments reflect this. I support this page and I think that it is quite clear that many people are willing to work with the Wikipedia guidelines to create something that works. Adoricic (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Adoricic


 * Delete I find the COI spamming in multiple forums troubling, and should not be rewarded. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if those allegations were true, that's not a reason for deletion. Notability is notability. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not strictly true, Andy: we can nuke advertorial (which this is). But there is more to it: much of the content is attempts to assert notaibility by association (coverage about people, not the subject of the article), and there's a long history of COI editors adding junk sources to give superficial referenciness. Guy (Help!) 00:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , I actually agree with you here, a lot of the references given in the article are junk. As I wrote below, in scientific writing references should serve as proof where certain information comes from, using them to demonstrate notability is a typical Wikipedia thing I'm all but happy about. In its current form, we have 11 sentences and 25 references, which is of course ridiculous. I will not edit the article given my own role in the LCS, but I do believe it would be a lot better off without references that merely mention the LCS. I'm actually quite curious myself how much of them would remain. In the meantime, would you kindly take a look at this article? It was written by an established scholar in the field of interlinguistics, published by the University of Poznań, and features almost two entire pages about the LCS. Slightly out of date by now, but definitely not "trivial coverage", if you ask me. Regards, &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  01:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The COI editing and promotional editing is indeed annoying, but I think it's important to emphasise that it's clear that notability is not shown. If the article is deleted partly because of the excessive COI editing I foresee future recreations and Wikilawyering, but it should actually be a pretty clear delete on notability grounds. Having a notable founder or notable members is not a claim to notability. Arranging a conference is not a claim to notability. Publishing a journal is not a claim to notability. Co-funding a documentary is not a claim to notability. The lawsuit is not a claim to notability - the DRV determined that already. Being an interesting society that does interesting things is, alas, not a claim to notability. --bonadea contributions talk 10:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Reduce to Redirect Precisely so. Other considerations are more complex but this is a case that has simply failed to clear the notability bar. Unlike the other problems, this cannot be cured by better editing. The ConLang article has a section for orgs; this club should have a sentence or two there. Perhaps eventually they will be able to drum up enough coverage in newspapers and the like, to expand the redirect again into its own article. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete For lack of reliable secondary coverage about the organization and thus failing WP:ORG. I have reviewed the reference and to my surprise almost twenty are bout language and linguist generally not this organization, and the rest are WP:INTERVIEW and trivial mention. This article also violates WP:! policy as some people are apparently using Wikipedia to promote it and the apparent coordinated effort to retain it on Wikipedia.  It is not even near to meeting WP:ORG talk less of WP:ORGDEPTH. It should be deleted, regardless of whether it is important or not. Wikipedia guidelines are clear, once subject is not reported about in multiple independent sources then article shouldn't be created for it, and this is no exception. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * I am vice-president of the LCS, which is a fact I have never hidden from anybody, nor have I ever made a secret of my true identity. I also state that I have no —and never had any— personal interest whatsoever in this article being there, and I detest those who claim otherwise. The simple fact that I sometimes present some facts or give my opinion about something has nothing in common with a conflict of interest. In any case, in the aforementioned capacity I am going to say two things:
 * I can confirm that all that David J. Peterson wrote above is true.
 * I can assure you that no canvassing has taken place in any of the channels I'm familiar with, internal or external, which includes all major places where conlangers meet. The reason I found out about this discussion is simply because the article is on my watchlist, which is probably the case for some others here as well. If somebody wrote something on Twitter, that's not something that has been endorsed by the LCS or its board of directors.
 * I haven't made a single edit to the article in question, nor was a going to participate in this discussion. It's actually the nominator who —needlessly— dragged me into this by falsely accusing me of adding crufty material to a previous article about the LCS, which is all the more abject since that article has been deleted, so that I cannot even prove him wrong.
 * As a Wikipedian, I feel disgusted about the extremely toxic athmosphere in which this whole discussion is taking place. "Blatant spam", "vanity", "promotion", "meat puppets", "canvassing" and similar epithets are not ways to have a civilised discussion. Neither Mendaliv, nor those who repeat these things after him like parrots, have given the slightest piece of evidence that any of these so-called COI users have made even a single non-neutral edit to the article, or even contributed anything of significance. It is a sad thing that the whole discussion is so heavily coloured by unfounded insinuations and false accusations. What happened to poor old AGF?
 * It has been said that his article is a recreation of a previously deleted article, but that is not the case at all. It was written by a different person (a person unaffiliated with the LCS, I should add) and probably based on the same knowledge, but not on the same text. Based on this, it seems that even the nominator recognises that fact, and also that he seems to think the article is acceptable in its current form. It's a pity he had chosen to remain silent instead of responding to criticism.
 * Apparently, once upon a time votes for deletion were renamed articles for deletion for a reason, namely: it's all about arguments and not about votes. So why do so many people behave as if were a vote anyway? And if not, what's the point of calling upon others to ignore the arguments of people with a perceived conflict of interest? For heaven's sake, if anyone knows precisely what the role of the LCS in Game of Thrones has been, it's David J. Peterson and Sai, and what they are presenting here is facts, not opinions. Like David said, ignorance is not a crime, but why would anyone deliberately choose to ignore the facts when they are presented to them one a plate? What if some reputable source writes that the pope has died, and then the pope himself jumps up saying "hey, I'm still alive!", would you tell him as well that he must shut up because he has a conflict of interest?
 * If someone writes something about a subject of doubtful notability, why is it that so many people immediately start shouting spam, self-promotion and the like? Is it so hard to imagine that a person simply writes about something out of sheer interest, and not with some hidden agenda? We know now that the article was not written in order to advertise anything, and if people see content that does not adhere to the rules of encyclopedic writing, they can simply improve or remove it. For example, I'm glad somebody removed this whole list of directors thing, which I agree shouldn't be there.
 * Why should people be punished for being honest about their identities and affiliations? It strikes me as extremely weird and unjust that these people are under constant attack of a mob of predominantly completely anonymous users who do not give any openness themselves about who they are and what their motives are. This is definitely something that poisons the athmosphere.
 * About references: last time I checked, the purpose of references in any encyclopedia or scientific work is to prove that a quote, number or fact was not sucked out of the author's thumb, and to give credit to the person who came up with it first. For that reason, there is nothing wrong with references to primary sources. One of the diseases of Wikipedia is actually that in often references are not used to point to the source of some disputable statement, but merely to prove notability of a subject. Personally, I believe references of the latter kind should be removed, especially if the subject is merely mentioned in passing.
 * About notability: I admit I have had my doubts about this myself, too. Why would an organisation with less members worldwide than at least five amateur soccer clubs in the town where I'm living? If anything, it is because there are thousands of soccer clubs in the Netherlands only, while the LCS is the only (and as far as I know, the first) organisation of this type. But I'll admit that this is a borderline case by any standard.
 * Speaking about standards, years ago the Wikiproject Constructed Languages made a serious effort to come up with a set of criteria for inclusion. I don't know what the criteria for organisations are, but the LCS would easily fulfill the inclusion criteria for conlangs and conlang-related articles.
 * You want a source with non-trivial coverage? Here is a paper written by Prof.Dr. Věra Barandovská-Frank from the Interlinguistics Department of Poznań University. Pages 8-10. Cheers, &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  16:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Addition: since Mendaliv uses the Google hits argument again, let me point out something funny. Using the very same method, the LCS has 227 ghits and Donald Trump 217. Which leaves us with two possible conclusions: either the LCS is about 5% more notable than Trump, or the Google argument is completely and utterly pointless. I surely hope for the former, but I fear the latter is more likely. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  00:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Note discussion at WP:ANI re edit warring and improper COI tagging. Crosslinked at WP:COIN. Sai ¿? ✍ 18:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Books and newspapers are presumably reliable sources, and this article cites several. I assume that the journalists who have described or mentioned the group are not being bought off (but if someone is bribing linguists, where do I sign up?). The content so far is a bit thin, but it is verified, and seems easily sufficient to confirm notability. Barring a WP:NOTEVERYTHING argument (and I don't see any soapbox-ing, instruction manual-ing, or the like), that seems to exhaust policy-based discussion. I frankly don't get where the vitriol is coming from, but it's irrelevant to a deletion decision anyway. Cnilep (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How is it easily sufficient? Notability requires significant coverage of which doesn't exist. Verifiability doesn't mean notability. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I suppose there is a lot of content on the page(s) I linked to. WP:N notes, "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Caveats apply (e.g. "significant coverage... creates an assumption, not a guarantee"), but from my reading the general notability guideline appears to be satisfied. Cheers, Cnilep (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I've reviewed the article and its references and it's clear that LCS doesn't meet the GNG because significant coverage in independent, reliable sources does not exist. Mentions of LCS in articles about constructed languages are minor and passing mentions only which is not enough to confer notability.
 * Reading the comments by LCS members above, it's clear that there are some misunderstandings regarding how Wikipedia guidelines apply to situations like this. Critically, it's important to recognize that terms like notability and canvassing are terms of art on en-wikipedia whose meaning may may be different here than on other wikis and outside Wikipedia. Another particular note is that notability is not inherited. This means that even though, for example, David Peterson himself is clearly notable, organizations with which he is affiliated are not automatically notable here. Finally, each comment here is not a vote but a !vote; the outcome of this discussion will not be decided by a headcount but by determing which positions are better supported by policies and guidelines. Ca2james (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I quite agree with you on all accounts, Ca2james. Just let me point out that the issue of inherited notability is a bit of a non sequitur in this case, since nobody has actually claimed that David J. Peterson being notable would automatically make the LCS notable, too. The opposite, of course, isn't true either: DJP's notability does not prove the LCS's lack of it. In any case, thank you for reviewing the article. I actually agree that a lot of the references in the article are junk (besides, 25 references for 11 sentences?!) If it is not too much asked, would you kindly take a look at this article? It was written by an established scholar in the field of interlinguistics, and features almost two entire pages about the LCS. Slightly out of date by now, but definitely not "trivial coverage", if you ask me. Best, &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  01:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, . I apologize for being unclear: I used David Peterson and organizations with which he may be affiliated as an example of how notability is not inherited. I did not mean to imply that anyone had said anything otherwise.
 * I looked at the article you linked. I must admit that I have a difficult time evaluating it for notability since I do not speak or read the language in which it is written. I did find the LCS material in the article at the end of section 3.1 and in all of section 3.2. Given that LCS appears to be covered in some depth, I would say that this source satisfies the significant mention part of the notability criteria. But is this article independent of LCS? And is it published in a reliable source? Without knowing where this article was originally published (the current link is not reliable because it's equivalent to an article on a blog) or the relationship of the author, if any, to LCS, I cannot determine if all criteria are met.
 * Typically at least two sources establishing notability are needed in a discussion like this. If this article meets the reliability and independence criteria and you have another source that also meets the criteria, this article has a much better chance of being kept. It's also usually best to include the sources establishing notability in the Wikipedia article. Ca2james (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I can tell with certainty that the author is not affiliated with the LCS, and that it is not a blog but a publication of the university. I believe the purpose is/was to serve as learning material for students of interlinguistics. If had has been published anywhere on paper, that I don't know. Personally, I'd say this is a perfectly valid source. But indeed, one such source is still not much, which is also why I expressed some doubts myself. This source plus some of the sources mentioned in the article make it a borderline case, I think. Regards, &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  09:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Sufficient evidence of notability is not apparent, per Ammarpad and Ca2james. As an aside, the hyperaggressive and confrontational approach shown here by some of those affiliated with LCS does not inspire confidence that a policy-compliant article will result if the article is kept. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment To be true, the hyperaggressive and confrontational approach shown here by the nominator is also a reason for concern. A nomination just one minute after restoration points, to my personal opinion, to a trigger-happy nominator on a mission to destroy. The Banner talk 21:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Point of clarification: Over 30 hours had passed from this article being mainspaced and my nominating it for CSD. It had actually been under development for some months in userspace. In total some 43 hours had passed before this AfD was started. I'm not sure where you get this one minute figure, but it's incorrect. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 22:29, 22 December 2017‎ Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs)‎ . . (56 bytes) (+56)‎ . . (Pigsonthewing moved page User:Adoricic/sandbox to Language Creation Society: Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission. I was indeed wrong, as it took you 67 minutes to shoot it down [nominated for deletion. But [[User talk:Adoricic]] shows your campaign against the article with your speedy deletion nomination, move to draft space/review/republishing and again your deletion nomination. To explain the minute: the templates about republishing and your nomination are only one minute apart. The Banner talk 10:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? Of course I sent this article to AfD as soon as I was aware that the G4 was undone. You're acting like that should be surprising. It is not. This article was recreated on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Language_Creation_Society&diff=806923963 October 24, 2017], mainspaced at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Language_Creation_Society&diff=816411947 04:45, 21 December 2017‎ (UTC)]. I tagged it for G4 over 24 hours later at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Language_Creation_Society&diff=816575386 06:50, 22 December 2017‎ (UTC)]. It got deleted, then undeleted, then mainspaced again. Then I nominated it for AfD because what had happened was effectively that my G4 nomination had been rejected with the claim that the article had changed since the last AfD and a new AfD was necessary. The G4 was undone at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Language_Creation_Society&diff=816667677 21:49, 22 December 2017‎ (UTC)], and I nominated it for AfD [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Language_Creation_Society&diff=816681510 23:36, 22 December 2017‎ (UTC)]. I did nothing improper. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 11:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You act like you have a personal grudge against this organisation. The Banner talk 11:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's not deal in subjective appearances, let's deal in objective facts. Sources, notability. Those matter here. Your (false) assertion that I have a personal grudge against LCS doesn't change that this organization is not notable by Wikipedia standards. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? So you will be retracting all your accusations of WP:COI, canvassing and other dirty tricks and judge the article ONLY on sources and policies? That would be a very positive move. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 15:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, your G4 nomination. G4 is for articles that are a "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion... sufficiently identical copies". G4 explicitly excludes "pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". You have that the new article is not "substantially similar to earlier versions of the deleted article", as you also claimed at ANI. So your tagging as G4 clearly was improper; as is your reason for nominating it for deletion here.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * as is your reason for nominating it for deletion here Since when is non-notability an improper reason for nominating an article for deletion? —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "I nominated it for AfD because what had happened was effectively that my G4 nomination had been rejected...". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I nominated it for G4 because it was a recreation of an article for a non-notable subject. That effectively got rejected by the recreation, so here we are. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Seems legit. --Vihelik (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Alright. So, the organisation's co-founder, not the organisation itself, mind you, played a role in creating a fictional language in a television series. And the organisation filed some legal actions. How does that bestow any type of notability upon the organisation? <b style="color:#ACA3BF">Stikkyy</b> t/c 06:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No no, you got that all wrong. Just read what David J. Peterson himself wrote about that on this very page. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  09:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:GNG, in a relatively obscure subject area, where it is a leading (abeit small) organization. WP:Not paper.  Lots of mainstream media (I fixed the formatting and links), not "self published" (did you actually look at the references? and books.  Saying they don't exist does not actually make them disappear.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, we've all looked at them, as the !votes above demonstrate. They were not WP:SIGCOV. Mere mentions of the organization's name or passing mentions in connection with coverage of some other person or event do not rise to the level of significant coverage. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to weigh in for or against the article since I'm one of the Wiki Ed people who supported the course. I wanted to throw out two things - I added some sourcing, two of which are German language sources that go over the LCS. Another thing, however, is that there's a viable alternative here - if all else fails and there is no way to keep the article in its current form, I would like to recommend that we merge the information into the main article for David J. Peterson, as he helped to co-found the organization and looks to be one of the most visible people in relation to the LCS. I'm going to try to add some additional sourcing as well as I find it, but I wanted to put this out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * One thing that I will say about this is that it does seem to be regularly referenced and mentioned in books that touch on the subject of conlangs and it also seems to be well thought of. One of the German language sources speaks highly of it. It's a shame that WP:ACADEMIC can't be used for organizations since this would potentially fit some of the guideline's requirements. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * would you be able to provide a translation of the German sources you added, or even a summary of what each source covers with respect to LCS? I'd be happy to change my !vote if these sources establish notability since, as far as I know, English sources are not required to establish notability. Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I typed them into Google Translate by hand and didn't keep them, so it'll take a while for me to do this since it was a little time consuming. I'll try to do this later on this evening since I have some work stuff to wrap up. Here are a few things that I was able to type up relatively quickly:
 * The activities of the well-organized and highly active Language Creation Society, which held an international conference for the fifth time in 2013, prove that planning language authors sometimes meet and exchange views outside the virtual world. (Wiederbelebung einer Utopie, University of Bamberg Press)
 * This is something that I was mentioning earlier, that it looks to be pretty well received and fairly major within its specific area - which is why I wish that we could use something like ACADEMIC can't be used for an organization of this nature. It's referenced regularly enough when academic sources discuss constructed languages and while yes, the GoT stuff came from one person involved with the organization, much of the content I find that covers this topic mentions them in the same breath. They'd likely fit the first criteria for ACADEMIC and possibly the seventh. However I'm aware that getting something that covers people to cover organizations, especially one that has grown beyond its academic roots, would be a whole, huge other discussion. This source is the one that goes into more depth and would be more of a headache to translate. I'll try to post this later today, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  17:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - if it is of any help to you, you can find a PDF version of the same book here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IJzeren Jan (talk • contribs) 20:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a huge help! Thank you! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  18:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, here's the translated content: User:Tokyogirl79/Translated content. I'm leery about posting what is essentially copyvio, but I want to note that this content should/will be deleted once the AfD is closed one way or another. , what do you think? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  18:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting the translation, ! I appreciate the work you put into doing it. To me, LCS is really only mentioned in that document in a passing way, not in a way that's significant enough to establish notability. I put the other source (the one on some webpage) into Google translate and it appears that the history of LCS is covered followed by a description of what's available on the website. This source might squeak by significant enough for notability but it's not a reliable source, being just a document hosted on a website. So I'm afraid that at the moment, my position remains delete. Ca2james (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * BTW,, , and others, it took me some digging in my memory, but I just found another source (an article in an academic paper) that might be useful: http://www.interlinguistik-gil.de/wb/media/beihefte/19/barandovska-conlangs-beiheft19.pdf. Pp. 150-151 are about the LCS, the rest of the article is more specifically about the Fourth Language Creation Conference. &mdash;IJzeren Jan  Uszkiełtu?  20:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Constructed languages talk page <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 22:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Commment Point of order. So that we are clear, the opening statement that this is this article's "2nd nomination" for deletion is disingenuous at least, if not false on its face:


 * If we are going to debate this we ought not to bury the article's history. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 20:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, this "history" was colliged and added onto the talk page by myself after the AfD was underway. However Mendaliv was involved with at least the 2015 Merge and 2016 AfD+DRV. So make of that what you will. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  22:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And a speedy deletion that is missing in the box. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 02:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article is already puffy and promotional enough, full of directory-style info and the kind of padding one finds in articles that promote organizations (the list of conferences, for instances, with their links, and the namedropping of people associated with some movie that already has an article). Mentions like this one are just really irredeemably shallow, and I have no idea what spam link is supposed to verify. The article shows all the marks of poor editing and of COI editing (not necessarily the same thing), the references are really weak, the subject has no inherent notability--we should delete this. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The project and its members and works are inextricably intertwined. So call it name dropping, but it isn't.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 23:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly: it's dropping blue links in an attempt to make the case for notability. If they're so intertwined, why do the members or that documentary need separate articles? Drmies (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. Not mine.  We will have to agree to disagree. WP:Civil limits my response. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 23:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh by all means, let it rip--I give you permission to just air it all out. See, I also think that you are wrong, but I don't feel the need to supplement that with insults. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Note Nominator stated they no longer believe the article merits a COI tag.
 * Also for those who !voted delete, how about making suggestions for constructive improvements, or (if not an issue of notability rather than content) sourcing that would be adequately convincing? I would also suggest the same for editors who seem to be just reverting / deleting whole sections to ameliorate some perceived issue that could be fixed with a much smaller, less destructive change — deleting takes you zero time, whereas gathering the resources did not. Pruning and condensing can be perfectly valid editing, but just burning down others' efforts is not constructive. Sai ¿? ✍ 04:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. The sourcing of the article is weak. In addition, I don't see the society doing an particularly meritorious work or infamous work to go it notability or notoriety. The cause that the society works on appears to be rather esoteric.Knox490 (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am an uninvolved AfC reviewer and I would have accepted this. Sourcing is not great but I believe it meets minimum WP:CORP requirements. There's a lot of noise in this discussion and I don't envy the closing admin. ~Kvng (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article now includes 32 references including from The New York Times, The Boston Globe, Cambridge University Press, The Guardian, The New Yoker, Washington Post and Motherboard. John Cummings (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How many of those references are substantive comments about the LCS per se, as opposed to passing mentions? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Shit Boris, so many of these are just awful. A half a statement. Mentioned in parentheses. A single sentence which proves it exists. A website that doesn't mention the joint. A sentence in Peterson's alumni webmag. Two half-sentences in some zine. I still have no fucking clue who thinks that this publisher's blurb which doesn't say shit about the joint is a valid reference. A half sentence. Another sentence with no depth whatsoever. They were approached for GoT and that's all it says. Another half a sentence. OK, I'm tired of this. None of these mentions say anything substantial, let alone in-depth, about the organization. I am very disappointed that some bona fide editors are somehow involved in this, as if they don't know better. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79 is looking at a fourth source (see above). In any case, this should make it more than clear that the claim that there is no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources is simply incorrect. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  18:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources. My impression is that the article is currently suffering from Citation overkill. I honestly don't know about all these newspaper sources. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of articles out there that point out David Peterson's connection to the LCS, and there's no point in having a dozen of resources that mention the same thing. I'd stick to the source that handles the subject in most depth and leave out the rest. In the meantime, here are three articles by independent authors in reliable, academic resources:
 * Věra Barandovská-Frank, Konferenzbericht über Conlangs. In: Fachkommunikation – interlinguistische Aspekte Beiträge der 21. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Interlinguistik e.V., 18. – 20. November 2011 in Berlin. Interlinguistische Informationen, Beiheft 19 (Berlin, November 2012, ISSN 1432-3567), pp. 149-154. Article in a German academic paper, pages 150-151 are about the LCS, the rest of the article is more specifically about the Fourth Language Creation Conference.
 * Věra Barandovská-Frank, Conlangs – (novaj) planlingvoj (AIS kurso, 1 studunuo). Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Dept. of Interlinguistics, 2012. The article (apparently study material for students of the first year) is in Esperanto, pages 8-10 are about the LCS.
 * Шувалова, Оксана Николаевна: История и эволюция интернет-ресурсов, представляющих вымышленные языки и освещающих вопросы лингвоконструирования. In: Актуальные проблемы гуманитарных и естественных наук. М.: Институт Стратегических Исследований, no. 4-7 (2017), pp. 57-65. This is an article published in a Russian scientific journal, about 2½ pages are exclusively about the LCS. The text can be viewed here.


 * I posted a translation of one of the German language sources here. I also want to repeat that if all else fails, this should be merged into the article for one of its founders, David J. Peterson. I think he's the only one with an article. I'm still not going to argue one way or another officially for the reasons I stated above, but I do think that this should be somewhere and I think the argument should if it should be included and more where it should be included - either in an individual page or merged into an existing one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  18:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for that! I hope you don't mind me putting your text under mine as a result of an edit conflict (and also because it's better under this header, don't you think? Cheers, &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  18:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is in response to IJzeren Jan's request that I look at the sources above, plus discuss some other issues brought up at ANI. First, I have to admit, I am not capable of reading German, Russian, or Esperanto, so my conclusions are based partly on Google Translate, but also on the general "look and feel" of the sources (i.e., structural cues as to their purpose). The Shuvalova source (in Russian) sticks out to me as concerning because much of the coverage of LCS appears to be a copy-paste of the LCS website, and there appear to be references to Wikimedia Foundation projects (which raises concerns for me about circularity, and thereby intellectual independence). The first Barandovská-Frank source (in German) confuses me, as it appears to be less an academic article than back matter in the journal describing an event that took place; the coverage on page 150 is just a list of names, while the coverage on page 151 looks to be discussion of what's on the LCS website (and the remainder a list of speakers at LCC4). The second Barandovská-Frank source (in Esperanto) looks like an unpublished course outline, and the coverage of LCS in there looks like an expanded "what's on the website" discussion.My gestalt of the two Barandovská-Frank sources and the Shuvalova source are that, in terms of what coverage they provide LCS, is that they mostly restate general information about the organization and provide a synopsis of "what's on the website", apparently sourced directly to the LCS website, as well as some routine information about the makeup of the organization. I don't see this as being satisfactory based on the intersection of a few of our more specialized notability guidelines, namely WP:WEBCRIT and WP:CORPDEPTH. While we're not exactly looking at an article about the LCS website or particular LCS web content, we're looking at an article trying to cover quite a few things at once. While this generally results in stepping back to purely WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV, I would argue that the more specialized guidelines provide persuasive interpretive guidance. Namely, with web content, where the coverage of the web content just comes from looking at the website or reprinting what's on the website (i.e., rather than being a secondary source), it fails the "independent" prong (and arguably the "multiple" prong to the extent that the works are recapitulations of what appears on one website). Similarly, under the corporate guidelines, much of the coverage in these sources would fall under "trivial" in WP:CORPDEPTH (e.g., Shuvalova's reprinting of an event schedule). Again, because we're dealing with an article attempting to wear many hats, these guidelines are more providing guidance and examples of when there's WP:SIGCOV versus when there is not. In this case, I don't see these articles adding to the SIGCOV picture.To answer IJzeren Jan's question about what would satisfy me, honestly, I don't know at this point. I don't like writing articles about organizations because, at least from my perspective, the sources tend to be full of historical holes and compromised by a lack of depth (and almost always by a lack of independence) that makes giving a straightforward narrative on the organization's history extraordinarily difficult, particularly in such a way that relies mostly on secondary sources. Pretty much any answer I could give would be a restatement of WP:SIGCOV at this point.As to the concern re: WP:SET, I'm actually quite surprised. I believe that the way Google functions has changed in the past year. When I did this previously, running the same test for a known-notable term would have run for something like 100 pages, then terminated with a notice that Google only retrieves the first x hits. There may be cause for opening a discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Search engine test about this. But let's be realistic: Search engine coverage is neither necessary nor sufficient, and if we look at the arguments throughout this discussion, none appear to have relied explicitly or solely on the claim of few search engine hits. On the contrary, most of the "keep" !votes claim, without any real support, that there is WP:SIGCOV (I, of course, do not include your arguments, which have been among the best made, even if I argue here that the sources you've presented are insufficient). I will, though, make a notation in the nominating statement that the search engine test appears not to be working as expected.I would also echo SMcCandlish's arguments below, which discuss these new sources. In the same vein, I also oppose a merge/redirect outcome for the same reasons. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose merge to the Peterson article per WP:COATRACK. Possibly merge, with trimming, to a subsection of Constructed language. "Some of the most well-known conlangers in the world are members of the society" is irrelevant; being "notable" among that handful of people isn't WP:NOTABLE. By way of direct comparison, most of the (few) professional writers about billiards and pool in the US have also formed a small trade association, the United States Billiard Media Association. It is not notable. As it's closely affiliated with the Billiard Congress of America, it redirects to a section there. But LCS is not an affiliate of Peterson; the relationship is reversed, so if a compressed merge happens it should be to the general article on the topic. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt; 22:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I just looked at the references in the article and mentioned above. To my mind, it is very clear that there are no intellectually independent references cited and therefore none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. For example, For the Love of Language mentions the organization but uses the organization's own description (in quotes) and says very little else - fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Or this reference from newrepublic.com mentions the LCS but it is merely a name-check They know Na’vi from Avatar but it’s unlikely they have heard of Moten, a language created by Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets, the president of the Language Creation Society and this is insufficient for meeting the criteria for establishing notabilty and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I could go on, but hopefully you get the point... -- HighKing ++ 20:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Extensive list of trivial, superficial coverage. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. As I write these words, there are 32 sources in the article. I haven't checked a GBooks link in German because I can't c&p to translate, a subscription only one which is specifically about the Klingon language, a subscription only one which appears to be specifically about David Peterson, and a "Building imaginary worlds" book which shows me no content. I've checked all of the rest. One is about the LCS's Language Creation Conference but written in the first person (ie by the LCS), several cover the Amicus brief (but just saying the LCS did it), and pretty much all the rest are about David Peterson or about Dothraki etc (or constructed languages in general) and they mention the LCS only briefly in passing (if at all). I found nothing actually about the LCS or which covers it in any depth at all. It's disappointing, but as Wikipedia's policy currently stands, notability is not established - because there is nothing even close to in-depth coverage (of the LCS) in reliable sources here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect Change to Delete after reading SMcCandlish's comments below. There isn't an appropriate place to redirect this title to. into a Language Creation Society subsection under David J. Peterson. I spent about an hour reading the sources, and then skimming the arguments above. (I have not read the Okrent book). The article is lacking indepth profiles of the organization, which are required to create a good narrative. The third party coverage is mostly just brief mentions of the group and what it does - but little history such as foundation date and founder info. Notice that the single NY Times source in the one sentence history section doesn't even mention the UC Berkeley student group info that precedes it. That in itself suggests this fails WP:GNG. This article does contain three individually (somewhat) notable elements: David J. Peterson, Dothraki language and the LCS lawsuit to be allowed to use Klingon without Paramount's permission. The latter isn't enough for a standalone article, but could be a new section in the Klingon article Klingon. With redirects from the Dothraki and Klingon articles to Peterson's article, this info will be preserved in a fair and accessible way. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC) <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment re "founder info": that's me. I very deliberately avoided coverage of me personally, including in press about the LCS. I didn't and don't want to be a public figure. The UCB LCS did nothing other than being a way for me to run LCC1 (& LCC2, through Alex). Post-LCC2 is when it expanded to the current version. Sai ¿? ✍ 21:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I can understand that not wanting publicity leads to reduced media coverage, but notable organizations and people often get unwanted coverage, despite being publicity adverse. The notability is what drives journalistic interest, not just access. While I think a merge and redirect is a reasonable resolution, we may be heading to a no consensus close. The closing admin certainly has their work cut out for them. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable independent sources either. BTW, accusations against Mendaliv of having some kind of personal stake or "personal grudge" against this article, simply because he has nominated it for deletion, are ridiculous. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete: The vast majority of the coverage is passing-mention, not in-depth; I spot-checked Boing!_said_Zebedee's source analysis and that editor's summary of the sourcing (as weak) appears to be correct. This thing is non-notable, and the intent is clearly promotional (even aside from meatpuppetry). The CoI primary author of this doesn't even understand the point of the CoI policy. Leaving yourself out of the article [I see someone added that person by mononym later] isn't complying with the policy, it's just creating an information gap in the article (we expect organizations' founders to be named in articles about them).  The point is that you, Sai [and several other people commenting above], are too close to the subject and cannot write neutrally about it.  Let me just quote from the lead: "It, and some of its affiliated members, was a leading sponsoring organization of a crowd-funded movie on constructed language."  Aside from being ungrammatical [see also misuse of several words by another LCS member above – aren't these supposed to be language experts?] , any time you put "leading" into an article lead you're making a mistake.  Also, WP:Notability does not rub off. The fact that David J. Peterson is notable doesn't make every group he belongs to notable by osmosis.  And see also WP:OVERCITE. Stacking up a total of 12 citations for the fact that Peterson created on-screen languages for Game of Thrones is utterly pointless; one will suffice, and adding them all to this article is just an attempt to make it seem like it has better sourcing than it actually has.  LCS itself – not individuals affiliated with it – need in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, secondary reliable sources (hint: the Barandovská-Frank paper is a primary source).  A film about the organization does not help establish notability when the org and its members paid for the film to be made.  That's not independent sourcing.
 * Are you referring to me as the "primary author"? If so, you are incorrect. The primary author is, as they stated above, who wrote it as part of 's WikiEd course. I have neither added nor removed my name from the article. In particular, I did not write the quote you give; that was added (AFAIK) by , whom I do not know and AFAIK has no LCS affiliation. My edit to that was to move text about the film to Conlanging: The Art of Crafting Tongues (whence it was immediately reversed), and in that move to delete a false snippet claiming that the LCS produced the movie. And FWIW, Sai is my full legal name; I don't know why you are being coy about "by mononym", or avoiding tagging me. Sai ¿? ✍ 06:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * delete and salt this is a case where we very obviously have a community of people who are online who have hijacked a page in WP to create a fake "article". The Language_Creation_Society section is especially ludicrous. What references there are mention the society in passing, only. Fails WP:ORG by miles.  Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note**: Two of the three above-given sources have the same name (Věra Barandovská-Frank} and for notability that counts as one. This is common knowledge so hints of more rebombing . I am not sure about the one translated from German. I couldn't see a notability connection. I watched a pretty good movie (I like Will Smith) named Bright. I was surprised to see the name "David J. Peterson" as the creator of the Elvish and Orcish Fantasy Languages. PCMag, which is pretty cool. Doesn't convince me there are reliable independent sources for this article, as I just can't see them. Also, I still, even with claimed COI involvement, have to wonder about the involvement of those that have edited the article, involved with the article, and fight so hard to "keep" the article. Of course their involvement would dictate bias, so any involved "keep" vote, to me, is biased and tainted. I don't care if the article is merged but agree with SMcCandlish opposing any merge to the "Peterson article".
 * Through all the crap talk I still can not see significant coverage which is more than "passing mention", and such "passing" mention or trying to add the total sum of non-notability to "squeek-by" or attempts to "nudge it over the top, just doesn't add up. I will note the reversal: The closing admin has a lot of work cutting through the junk, especially the COI editors, but delete is more assured than some editors here might think. Side note: I have absolutely zero involvement with the subject or any person related to this discussion and subject. I did like the movie, think the concept of "Conlang" is interesting but not a groupie, so I think my assessment is totally unbiased and fair. Also, I know that some don't seem to think it important, but there are names of living people involved and derogotory, neutral, with 10 teaspoones of sugar, or written by the person involved, BLP related criteria dictates not "squeeking by" on sources. Otr500 (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please remember that the current article was made by a student in my WikiEdu supported course and NOT by a member of the LCS. Her reasons for creating it are listed above in a comment so any claim that the LCS highjacked a page to create a "fake" article is completely false. The previous draft articles have now been merged, but the original article here up for discussion was not affiliated and had significant content differences as even the initiator of this AfD has stated elsewhere (I'm new here and don't know how to add that link). CESchreyer (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. I'm sympathetic to the issue that even for major professional societies, finding independent coverage can be difficult. But the only things in the article that resemble claims of significance are "it has notable members" and "it filed an amicus brief in someone else's lawsuit". That's not close to enough for notability of the society itself. And the failure of the sources to pass WP:GNG (or even provide any nontrivial coverage of the subject rather than attempts at WP:INHERITED notability via its members' accomplishments) has been amply discussed above. The strong pattern of promotionalism, COI editing, defiance of and wikilawyering of the consensus on the past AfD, and canvassing shown here is also highly troubling, making it unlikely that we can ever have a properly neutral article and fully justifying the suggestion that this be protected against recreation. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. And, for all the members of that group, this is not a comment about the work the group does or any slight against any of its members. It's just not notable enough for an encyclopedic article, as evidenced by numerous editors above. Boing! said Zebedee's analysis of sources is particularly convincing to me. Additionally, David Eppstein eloquently spells out the reasons that salting is required. Ifnord (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, I am also I. Favor of salting. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:04, 29 December 2017 (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.