Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1966 Dartmouth Literacy 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 keep. ✗plicit 00:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1966 Dartmouth Literacy Conference[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

While undoubtedly detailed and compendious, this very long article on a conference - with a lot of OR/uncited content - is sourced entirely to its own proceedings and publications. With no MSM coverage in evidence, and no evidence to back up claims such as "The Conference had a very big impact on how English and literature were taught in the United States and the United Kingdom for multiple years after the conference.", and with no evidence at all of an impact on British education, let alone American education. In fact, the paper cited here, "The Dartmouth Conference: Its Reports and Results" appears to throw cold water on the while idea of Dartmouth being influential on the teaching of English. We really don't need a list of people who attended a conference in 1966, either.No independent coverage, fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, United States of America, and New Hampshire. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google search for '"Dartmouth conference" english' throws up multiple published academic papers discussing the history and impact of this conference. Clearly one of the few academic conferences to have a significant impact as a conference.Jahaza (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of reliable sources.[1][2][3] Thincat (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability has been established by provided sources per Keep voters.—Natalie RicciNatalie 09:49, 2 August 2022 (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.