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. Particularly, due to the sourcing added by User:Megalibrarygirl. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 09:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Win Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I can't see any meaningful coverage, and doesn't seem like a major notable event.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Does not meet WP:GNG. - GretLomborg (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but move to Women's International Networking Conference the correct name for the article. Searching under different terms, I found plenty of RS covering the conference across the world, including Japan Times, The Financial Express, Vanity Fair, and The Hindu. Other RS mention the conference, such as The New York Times and others. I've added the sources to the article, cleared out the fluff and moved unsourced information to the talk page. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- business conferences are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. This content can just as effectively be housed on the org's web site. No need for an encyclopedia entry just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move to Women's International Networking Conference. New sources are OK. Most are passing mentions, but the Gairdian called it "Europe's biggest women's networking conference", and a mention in the New York Times is nothing to scoff at. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 13:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per mentions and above. I have done a preliminary move to WIN Conference and support moving it per MegaLibraryGirl. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @Megalibrarygirl: Could you please link to two or three of the best sources that you found? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG and in this case I find that the presumption of notability leads me into thinking there should be an article. @K.e.coffman: The links you require to the recommendations MLG gave above are[1][2][3][4] I hope you are able to follow these. It seems four references are more than you are wishing to read, possibly based on your assertion of inherent non-notability (also above). If so I suggest omitting The Hindu but this has to be merely my personal opinion. Thincat (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2017 (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.