Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Custom Integrated Circuit 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 speedy keep per acknowledgement of notability by nominator and absence of any other delete preferences. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Custom Integrated Circuit Conference

I consider this a bit of a test case - it's a yearly conference, but it's a scientific conference that's not likely to get much press attention. Only source is an external link to the conference. Lots of hits on google, but it's because of all the conference publications, doesn't seem to be extensive coverage from secondary sources. Wired (magazine) coverage of the conference would be adequate, but top hit after the conference page proper is wikipedia. Should it be deleted? I think so. I also would consider adding the conferences I found at Very-large-scale_integration#Conferences. They're stubby, sourceless and circular for the most part. WLU (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also considering bundling the other pages but I'm not sure as I've never bundled - any suggestions from regulars would be welcome! WLU (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. All these conferences have many secondary sources. For one example, the main newspaper in the field is EE Times. A quick search on google (' "custom integrated circuits conference" site:eetimes.com' ) shows 42 references in this newspaper alone, including many conference overviews such as Custom Circuits . Design Automation Conference is the main conference for a five billion dollar industry. It has 1700 hits in EE Times articles alone. Similarly ICCAD ICCAD previews technical program, ISPD Future of chip design revealed at ISPD, etc. Note that these are overview articles, with named editors, and not copies of other descriptions. LouScheffer (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, were those references in the article, I wouldn't have AFD-ed it. That's actually enough for me to assert notability, though this may repeat if they're not included. WLU (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2008 (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.