The result was delete. JForget 00:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a spam article created by a single-purpose editor who has resisted all attempts by other editors to tone it down. The article is simply an advertisment for the conference, which costs 1,500 euros to attend. It should be deleted. Simple Bob (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the accompanying category, which was applied to tens of articles, has been approved for deletion. --Simple Bob (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors have raised some alleged issues regarding the article I originally wrote about the CHINICT conference and, have requested its deletion. For the sake of clarity, in the rest of this document, I will refer to these editors as "the editors".
The goal of this document is to show that these alleged issues are mostly unsubstantiated and therefore, should not be used as a basis to request the deletion of the CHINICT article.
1. Alleged issue of "spam article" and "single-purpose editor".
The editors have claimed that the CHINICT article was "spam" written by a "single-purpose editor".
However, "the editors" have failed to provide any substantiated elements that would allow them to qualify the CHINICT article as "spam" or demonstrate it was written by a "single-purpose editor" - for whatever this last expression might mean.
2. Alleged issue regarding the "unsuitable tone" of the article.
The tone of the CHINICT article is meant to be neutral and informative.
"The editors" have failed to explain why the tone of the article was - in their opinion - "unsuitable" or why it should be "toned down". Here are a few examples of the misleading and/or unfounded arguments "the editors" have used to justify the alleged "unsuitable tone" of the CHINICT article.
Example # 1: "The editors" have criticized the fact that the CHINICT article mentions the list of the companies supporting the CHINICT conference. However, as clearly explained in the article, the CHINICT conference showcases a business and societal phenomenon whose main players include the companies supporting the CHINICT conference. The mentioning of such companies is therefore essential to the global understanding of the article. This is the reason why such companies are mentioned in the CHINICT article. "The editors" have also claimed that it seemed unclear such companies were supporting the CHINICT conference. A brief look at the reference # 5 of the CHINICT article (stressing Microsoft support of the CHINICT conference) or at the following video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7E_ljBy_cQ ("the editors" have chosen to remove from the external links of the CHINICT article) will prove otherwise.
Example # 2: The CHINICT article has been criticized for presenting a gallery of pictures, because, according to "the editors": "such a short article does not justify such a big gallery of smiling people handing each other awards". This statement is unsubstantiated for 2 reasons. First, there is no written or unwritten rules on Wikipedia stating that a pictures gallery requires an article of a specific size. Second, there is no place on Wikipedia stating that it is forbidden to show pictures of "smiling people handing each other awards" (by the way, only one picture out of 6 was showing "smiling people handing each other awards"). Without further elaboration on the vacuity of this statement, the goal of a small gallery of 6 pictures (that "the editors" have actually removed) was to bring a vivid complement of information to the topic of the article. By the way, gallery of pictures are commonly used on Wikipedia for articles dealing with similar topics - such as the Wikipedia article on the TED conference.
Example # 3: "The editors" have chosen to remove most of the external links under the pretense that they contributed to the promotion of the CHINICT conference. Wrong again. These links were actually providing a valuable complement of information to the CHINICT article thanks to the CHINICT Videos Channel and some unbiased websites (in Chinese) dedicated to the phenomenon of "chinization" and the CHINICT conference.
3. Alleged issue regarding ignoring editing remarks made by "the editors".
Despite what has been said by "the editors", most of the few semantic and grammar issues mentioned by "the editors" have been taken into account - more than once (see the documented corrections in the history of the CHINICT article as well as on the discussion board).
4. Alleged issue regarding the cost of the conference.
First, the cost of the CHINICT conference is not mentioned in the CHINICT article - since this article is not meant to promote the conference.
Second, the fact that the CHINICT article mostly deals with a paid conference does not make the article an advertisement of the conference - nor is a motive to disqualify the article to be featured on Wikipedia.
As a matter of facts, many articles on Wikipedia are about paid conferences - which are most of the time less notable than the CHINICT conference.
5. Alleged issue regarding the notability of the conference.
This last alleged issue should probably be the most significant while considering deletion of the CHINICT article.
"The editors" wrongly assumed that the companies mentioned in the CHINICT article conduct their business in English. Therefore, in "the editors' " opinions, should the CHINICT conference be "truly" notable, the sources in English language should be more abundant than the ones mentioned in the CHINICT article and beyond.
This major claim from "the editors" is unsubstantiated and misleading.
Indeed, as it is clearly stated in the CHINICT article, the CHINICT conference takes place in China and features mostly Chinese companies and China-based multinational companies that - obviously - conduct most of their business in Mandarin and not in English. This explains why many high profile sources provided as references in the CHINICT article are in Chinese. This also explains the abundant information - available in Chinese - on the Internet and beyond, whenever the CHINICT conference is referred to.
As a consequence, the notability of the CHINICT conference has been established - way beyond the reputable Western publications and video testimonials mentioned in the CHINICT article (that "the editors" have nonetheless kept on disqualifying, arguing that some of them were presented through YouTube...).
Indeed, in the CHINICT article, the notability of the CHINICT conference has also been established through unbiased sources from major Chinese publications and media groups with extensive coverage on Wikipedia - such as Xinhua News Agency, Sina Corporation, People's Daily, Tencent, Netease. For years, such Chinese high profile media have been publishing on-going extensive coverage on the CHINICT conference and on the phenomenon of "chinization" (see CHINICT article's references # 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, for example).
The ignorance of the Chinese language - by "the editors' " own admission - is no reason to disqualify the notability of the topic of the article. On Wikipedia, Chinese sources coming from respected and notable providers are not banned or considered unreliable because they are in Chinese or come from China. On the contrary, they are supposed to be as respected as their Western counterparts.
Failing to take into account the Chinese references is therefore highly prejudicial to establish the notability of the CHINICT conference and the relevance of the CHINICT article on Wikipedia.
Hopefully these explanations will clarify all doubts and set the tone for some productive collaborative work.
All the best, Franckn55 (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]