Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. I'm not going to assume bad faith, but consensus and policy are clear. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 16:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimania

Wikimania (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not notable conference, The only hits its gets on Google news are blogs and it has not secondary sources. DXRAW 08:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment This should be fun. Nick mallory 08:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep The external links section of the article shows more than enough material to merit the article including from the BBC and the New York Times. Davewild 08:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The event is mentioned by several impeccable non trivial sources (Guardian, Boston Phoenix, BBC, New York Times etc) and so is clearly notable. (The nominator left a comment on my talk page asking for a constructive comment on this AfD so I will oblige him.) Nick mallory 08:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. The New York Times and the BBC among others cited are certainly non-trivial sources. Will (aka Wimt) 09:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - whenever I see "The Guardian", "BBC", "Reason", and "The New York Times" all writing articles about a subject, it's usually a good tip-off that it's notable. --Haemo 09:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per all. Notability established by external coverage. Maxamegalon2000 10:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:POINT may apply here... Charlie 11:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, article cites plenty of reliable sources Hut 8.5 13:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Plenty of reliable sources, and I'm sure that more can be added. It is also notable. Cool Bluetalk to me 14:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep as this is either a bad faith nomination or a highly mistaken one. [1] gets me Deutsche Welle, Spiegel, NPR, Business Week and Fox News all in the first five. And that's not even counting related stories which brings in the Times, USA Today and Wired. FrozenPurpleCube 15:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as bad faith nom. Subject clearly asserts notability through many reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
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.