Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conduit (convention)

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. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conduit (convention)[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. All but one of the refs appear to be dead of non-existent. The one remaining one that was available was clearly a press release and not in a reputable publication. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has been covered by multiple newspapers and television stations. Whether the links are currently working is irrelevant as they worked at the time the references were added. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, how is KSL not a "reputable publication"? They are one of the oldest news organizations in the country. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I added a bunch more refs and found archives of some of the the other news articles which were no longer accessible on the original sites. This was all within about 30 minutes, so I don't think any effort was spent trying to find articles or archives of articles before this nom was made. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as many reliable sources which proves notability. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as properly sourced. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep per User:Nihonjoe CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as adequately sourced to demonstrate GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – See WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAs per above Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient sources. --Fixuture (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:51, 3 May 2016 (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.