Deletion of Language Creation Society (2nd nomination)

Comment: 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, https://books.google.ie/books?id=LFi2CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA35&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false ''For the Love of Language'' mentions the organization but uses the organization's own description (in quotes) and says very little else - fails . Or https://newrepublic.com/article/122961/fantastical-rise-invented-languages 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 . I could go on, but hopefully you get the point
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: 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, otability 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 . 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.'''Oppose merge''' to the Peterson article per . '''Possibly merge, with trimming, to a subsection of Constructed language#Modern conlang organizations'''.  "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 OTABLE. 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:OVERCITE||WP:INDY||WP:COATRACK||WP:NOTABLE)

Comment: 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  (or even provide any nontrivial coverage of the subject rather than attempts at  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:INHERITED)

Comment: 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#Events section is especially ludicrous. What references there are mention the society in passing, only. Fails  by miles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: For lack of reliable secondary coverage about the organization and thus failing . I have reviewed the reference and to my surprise almost twenty are bout language and linguist  generally '''not''' this organization, and the rest are  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  talk less of DEPTH. 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:INTERVIEW||WP:ORG||WP:ORGDEPTH)

Comment: I am an uninvolved AfC reviewer and I would have accepted this. Sourcing is not great but I believe it meets minimum  requirements. There's a lot of noise in this discussion and I don't envy the closing admin
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: 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 WP: policies and guidelines| policies and guidelines for the subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY||WP:notability)

Comment: 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 OTEVERYTHING 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:V||WP:N||WP:NOTEVERYTHING)

Comment: 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 &nbsp;or trivial mentions versus deep coverage, but they are of course relevant. Sorry, but neither  nor  is met here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:GNG||WP:ORG)