Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language Creation Society (2nd nomination)
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
— User:SMcCandlish, 22:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:OVERCITE||WP:INDY||WP:COATRACK||WP:NOTABLE (Wikipedia:Notability)