Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Japanese–English Translation Conference

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. No sourcing, no desire to merge. JodyB_talk 05:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Japanese–English Translation Conference

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

Notability not established for over 5 years, no merge discussion for over a year. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Japan Association of Translators. Although the target article is also unsourced, Google Books finds several mentions. My !vote presumes that the organization will satisfy GNG. If the decision is to merge, I would lose the list of meetings, but keep information in the lead section. Cnilep (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to demonstrate that this conference meets the basic notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. Gbooks contains mainly proceedings from this conference. This is not third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Cnilep. Keep the lead section in a better place. The list, meh. Jus da fax 10:24, 6 December 2013 (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.