Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CodeCon Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CodeCon

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Listed for 12 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CodeCon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DELETE. No one cares about CodeCon. Not in the encyclopedic sense, that is. Fully lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is too reliant on primary sources, it is true, and most ghits are blogs and the like. But I am finding sufficient notability from article in Linux Journal, amongst others. I see no reason to delete. I42 (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Likely Keep  : I spot checked the PeekABooty ref to newscientist website. It does mention the conference at the end. While this may seem to be trivial mention, I think this fits into the "short on words but big still significant" coverage that could allow you to write an article. That is, the site, newscientist has nothing to do with the topic and this seems to be an article, not a blog entry. I guess even if this falls short as not being enough to put into a good article, the authors seemed to think that topic was worthy of note and there is probably more independent coverage. This isn't quite like my other scenario, that is something like software that is mentioned in methods section of many scientific papers but not otherwise covered, but may qualify. While all this source allows you to write is maybe a line or two more similar sources could create enough things to discuss( " the conference is often mentioned when people cover new and unusual software products. For example, [ list-type stuff ]. Conference selects software with penguiny goodness[] etc"

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : Hi, this was just brought up at WikiProject Computer Security. just doing a google search, there appears to be sufficient coverage. I will attempt to improve the article. It is difficult, due to low media coverage, however I believe the article to be encyclopedic, and notable. Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.