Deletion of International Conference on Climate Change

Comment: as article creator.  This page has plenty of sources to demonstrate notability and is not the same thing as what was previously AfD'd (not to mention that since that time the conference has happened again and received much more coverage). Pasted from what I wrote on Raul's talk page: The AfD that you cited (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) was about the NIPCC, which came out of the ICCC but is not the same thing.  It was also a year ago and ended with no consensus and a "recommendation" to redirect.  If you look at most of the non-keep arguments, they either claim that there is no notability or that there's no evidence that it's notable outside of the conference.  This year's conference has been covered in many news outlets, as you can see http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22International+Conference+on+Climate+Change%22 here and in the large number of sources in the article, certainly enough to meet  IMO.  Current sources include http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004254453_weekclimate02.html The New York Times (http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/global-warming-skeptics-convene-in-ny/ twice), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030302781.html The Washington Post, http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8687 The Canada Free Press, http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/12/07/skepticism_on_climate_change/ The Boston Globe, http://www.rferl.org/Content/GlobalWarming_Skeptics_Raise_A_Storm_In_New_York/1507372.html Radio Free Europe, http://reason.com/blog/show/132149.html Reason Magazine, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/kyoto-protocol/news/article.cfm?c_id=244&objectid=10503093 The New Zealand Herald, http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/tobacco-and-oil-pay-for-climate-conference-790474.html The Independent, and about a dozen others.  The other concern doesn't apply to this article because the conference clearly existed, was attended by numerous notable people in both science and politics, and was well-covered by sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: as in not delete). Passes  with flying colors
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: plenty of independent, |reliable sources, which is a key defining element of  notability. If someone has concerns, as in the other AfD, about the actuality of the conference, |establish this in the article, but for now, it seems to have garnered enough press publicity to be considered notable —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:SOFIXIT)

Comment: as non-notable per #NEWS. The conferences get short bursts of mention around the time when they are held, which is the inevitable result of press-releases. And in the time between them, only occasional mentions in Op-Ed's. Its basic astroturfing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)