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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SeeTalkGrow[edit]

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

Not notable, can't verify to satisfy WP:N. Was PRODed, creator removed prod with explanation "While SeeTalkGrow is a new conference (just announced in February, and thus, doesn't have much press coverage yet) there are notable professional guests appearing on the show, many of whom are included on Wikipedia and respected in their industries. This should develop objective press coverage over time, which will naturally lead to a more full reference list." which sums it up, that it doesn't have sources. The only source is an article written on a blog (otherwise ok) that is involved with the event, making it a primary source. Other sources are twitter, myspace, facebook, etc. WP:TOOSOON, there are lots of these festivals, most aren't notable, no reason to assume this will be either. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To contradict the creator, none of the "notable professional guests" listed have articles here. Assuming their statement was a good faith error. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification A number of the guests listed on the conference website are either on Wikipedia, or the organisations they represent are. CandleOfFaith (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Has one reference and it is of the type needed for wp:notability, but that is insufficient. This is basically a web idea that someone is trying to get launched. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case I didn't make it clear before, that one article is written by the person who is creating the event, so it is a primary link. Perfectly fine for giving info, useless to establish notability. It is no different than a link to the "official website" in this respect. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the deprodding rationale is actually a good deletion rationale. Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per North8000. Khazar2 (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2012 (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.