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. John254 00:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences (2nd nomination)[edit]

International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

These conferences did not seem to be all that notable. The article is only sourced by their own website and a passing remark in a college newspaper. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge: this seems to be another in a long line of 'vanity' conferences/summits/organisations/etc that Moon and the Unification Church has put together. They generally have little or no impact discernable through reliable third party sources. A 'List of Unification Church organizations' list-article would be an appropriate repository for them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: this article has already been deleted once as non-notable, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences, in December 2006 -- meaning that it really shouldn't have been recreated without solid sourcing to establish WP:NOTE/WP:ORG -- as happened within two months of its original deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These conferences took place in the 1970s and 80s and were widely reported by the news media at the time, which was before the Internet. Here is a Yahoo search for the exact words, "International Conference on for the Unity of the Sciences": [1] As I said on the article's talk page, I'm in the process of finding more sources now. (p.s. I didn't contribute to the original article.) Steve Dufour (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. It helps to get the name right. Here is the Yahoo search for "International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences" [2].

• Keep: These conferences attracted top scientists, including nobel laureates. I have just restored and added sourced material referencing this, which goes to notability. Steve Dufour promised on the article's talk page on 13 June 2008 to add other such material as soon as his Amazon order arrives. The nominator for AfD of this article either didn't read this on the article's talk page, or decided to nominate it anyway, for whatever reason. In any case the AfD is premature. I am a critic of the Unification Church, and Hrafn is right that there are a number of Unification articles on Wikipedia that should be deleted or merged, but this is not one of them. Just have some patience and wait until sources can be found. -Exucmember (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as I said in declining an earlier prod on this article, "Moonie offshoot though it may be, it's notable" Obviously, there will be NPOV issues involved in an article on this, and possible blp issues involved in characterising the nature of any individual's participation. But we can deal with them through the ordinary editing processes. DGG (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: claims of notability to date appear to be either by bare assertion (DGG), name-dropping (Exucmember) -- but notability isn't transitive, or by search results (Steve Dufour) which yield (in their first page) 7 ICUS/UC-linked pages, the wikipedia article itself and 2 sites selling a book published by the ICUS -- hardly evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (per WP:NOTE). I would wish to see evidence of said significant coverage before I would agree that notability has been established. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Can anybody provide verifiable evidence that they "were widely reported by the news media at the time", or point to any of "the sources in the article" that come even close to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If the Harvard Crimson isn't reliable enough for some reason then here is some more evidence of significant coverage. Are the New York Times, the The Philadelphia Inquirer and Encyclopedia Britannica reliable enough sources for you? It only takes a few seconds to do a Google News search that would have avoided the need to argue this out at AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep given the sources in the article and promise of more work by Steve Dufour. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Exucmember. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2008 (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.