Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimania 2006

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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2006

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Ypnypn (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Once again, we have a piece of New York Times coverage showing. See: WP:POINT. Passes GNG; fixable through the normal editorial process. Carrite (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does this violate WP:POINT? -- Ypnypn (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Upgrading to Speedy. See WP:BEFORE. Headhunting multiple articles about Wikipedia conventions in rapid succession for deletion on Wikipedia without making the slightest effort to see if sources exist is disruptive. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Yes, the articles suck. Suckiness is not a reason for deletion. Carrite (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They can be improved, but this is not the way. – SJ + 23:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - does meet WP:GNG. Ansh6 6 6 05:06, 9 September 2013 (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.