The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DESRIST[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a group, or conference, or website (the article is not very clear on this) which has no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The conference gets 1250 results in Google books and 484 results in Google scholar. Maybe there's something notable here? Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The book results are citations in the reference section citing a paper or presentation given at a DESRIST conference. The scholar results appear to be papers that were presented at DESRIST conferences. Does that make the conference notable? None of it is coverage about the conference, but topics in academia isn't my strong suit. Perhaps that does make it notable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think numerous notable presentations at DESRIST conferences make DESRIST notable enough for an article. --Kvng (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete numerous presentation are not enough to make a conference notable , or all conferences would be. There is no evidence that any of the presentations were notable. The article goes to some length talking about the notability of linkedin, etc. , but that doesn't disguise the fact that there's no real relevant reliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.