Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language Creation Society (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Cnilep, 02:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:AGF||WP:V||WP:N||WP:NOTEVERYTHING (Wikipedia:Assume good faith)