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 merge to International Association for Cryptologic Research , selectively ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Cryptology Conference[edit]

International Cryptology Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is essentially a forking and a WP:NOTADVERTISING signpost of a conference that does not stand on its own WP:GNG to have its own article.I believe it should be redirected into International Association for Cryptologic Research and accordingly, I have done so, however an editor insists that this be pushed through AfD. Graywalls (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Calling this page an advertisement seems like a stretch, though I agree the references are in a sorry state. As an IACR member, I have somewhat of a conflict of interest. But, at least within the field, this conference is considered among the most reputable and influential. The conference proceedings (published as Advances in Cryptology) should probably be evaluated per WP:NJOURNALS. But from where I stand they appear highly cited in other papers (e.g. 2,400 citations of the 2010 edition) and even on Wikipedia. BenKuykendall (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I am wanting is not to delete, but redirect to IACR and have it as a subsection under IACR so when people enter this into the search bar, it goes to IACR page. This is what I did, however, Dwaro (talk · contribs) insists that it goes through the formal deletion procedure. " But, at least within the field" would imply that the conference itself is likely not notable on its own to merit its own discrete Wikipedia page on a general encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of cryptography. Graywalls (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: I know what a redirect is. If you want to merge for editorial purposes, this is not the right venue to discuss this. Regardless, since you argue that the topic is non-notable and took the page to AfD, it seems appropriate to debate this point. I am not arguing that the general notability guidelines are met -- it is often quite hard to find good coverage of academic publications. Instead, I am proposing WP:NJOURNALS as another means by which we can show the topic is notable. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's an essay. Not a guideline or policy. I'm seeking to merge it, because I do not find that article satisfies GNG to merit its own article and there's more than enough space in IACR page to accommodate it. Dwaro is insisting that it goes through AfD. Graywalls (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. There is clear notability from my perspective, but this fact is tough to prove. The convention appears to be covered by reliable sources such as this: [1] and other sources similar to it. While it can be argued that this source cannot be used as it is "self published", I would argue that it is still published as it was written, to my knowledge, written by individuals without affiliation to the organization besides being participants, and the organizers published the work. It is naturally difficult to demonstrate the notability of a convention, even when the convention results in the output of several reputable and scholarly works. (While not being used to support my !vote, the article has existed since 2002 and redirect targets do exist, so I am strongly against deletion.) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you clarify that you're mildly suggesting keep, because you feel that it is notable, or because you feel that it meets the general notability guldeines applicable on Wikipedia? Thank you. Graywalls (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Significant enough to have its proceedings published every year - [2][3] etc. (and I don't think these books can be considered self-published when it is published by Springer). Hzh (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: publication, even by a reputable publisher, is generally not sufficient to show notability; see WP:BKTS. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood WP:BKTS completely. WP:BKTS is about whether a book is notable enough to have its own article, not about whether the book can be used to establish the notability of a different article. Hzh (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: I think I did misunderstand your argument. To clarify, you want to cite the proceedings themselves as evidence the conference is notable? To me, this does not pass the bar as an independent source. BenKuykendall (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD is about the conference, of course I am talking about the notability of the conference. The publisher is independent, the publication of the proceedings is like publication of papers (which they are), the difference being that these were also presented at the conference. Hzh (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to IACR and trim to essentials. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to International Association for Cryptologic Research. KartikeyaS (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the lead to International Association for Cryptologic Research. While I was not able to find sufficient independent sourcing for notability per WP:GNG, basic facts about the conference series are verifiable and the parent org is a good merge target. The big table of yearly details is undue, but the lead or a summarized version of it would fit nicely in the parent article. With verifiable content and a good target, merge is preferred per WP:ATD. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 18:39, 2 April 2020 (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.