Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 News Corporation Management Conference


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 06:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 News Corporation Management Conference
Conference hasn't started yet. Also, no similar conferences are in wikipedia. The conference agenda doesn't seem to be an appropriate entry for an encyclopedia Cassavau 22:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also seems to fail WP:CORP as a product or service. The entry states that it is for "250 News Corp. executives".  Cassavau 22:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also seems more than a bit of an advert --Bookgrrl 23:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep -
 * There are similar conferences in wikipedia see Shangri-La_Dialogue, Bilderberg Group, not sure why this would be reviewed under WP:CORP as it is neither a product nor service it is a privately sponsored conference involving notable world leaders on notable topics. Instead you should consider it as a category:International nongovernmental organizations


 * The LA times article states "gather this weekend for a management retreat at a posh California seaside resort" so this is not crystal balling. There will be more articles about the conference in the next couple of days so I would suggest the nomination is premature this is evolving like any other current event.


 * Bookgrrl suggested this is an advert so I would like to clarify that I created this article and am in no way associated with News Corp or this conference.


 * This article needs editing not deleting. --Paul E. Ester 00:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "2006 News Corporation Management Conference". It appears to be sponsored by News Corporation, and therefore might be considered a service of News Corporation.  The Bilderberg Group  entry is a discussion of the group and its conference in general, not an agenda of a specific conference.  If this article were something along those lines, I would not suggest it for deletion.  As it stands now, it appears to be something other than what is appropriate here.  --Cassavau 01:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not assert meeting any criteria on why this is notable. Since it is private, the facts can not be confirmed and it might not be verifiable and might be OR.  Conferences like this happen all of the time, every major company runs them.  If this one is kept, whip out the Vegas convention list and start writing articles. Vegaswikian 22:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have refocused the article, please give it another glance to see if it's more of a proper entry. --Paul E. Ester 04:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete --Peta 09:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm not convinced that a gathering of notables is notable. -AED 20:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is in good shape. The question is what impact it has had on the outside world and I can't see that it has had all that much. It might be worth a mention on the News Corporation article. Delete. Capitalistroadster 11:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 11:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Capitalistroadster. JPD (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I appreciate the feedback but have to question the bar for entry into the notability that the editors reviewing this article are applying. The conference is notable enough to have been covered by the LA times, Business week, the independent, the guardian, AP and the New York times.
 * Comment - I appreciate the feedback but have to question the bar for entry into the notability that the editors reviewing this article are applying. The conference is notable enough to have been covered by the LA times, Business week, the independent, the guardian, AP and the New York times.


 * I agree with AED that there could be some debate as to whether a gathering of notables is notable. That would make sense absent press coverage of an event, or perhaps covered by local news sources. However this event is being covered by world class papers around the world.


 * I want to express a little frustration that the original afd was for crystal balling and WP:Corp and now on the re-review has become a discussion on if this is notable or not. I would like some feedback as to what would satisfy this event as notable to the editors currently reviewing it. It's worth a reminder that WP is not a paper encyclopedia. I believe there are a few KB available for this article on the servers as is, thanks for your feedback so far. ---Paul E. Ester 16:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply - I will first note that my initial nomination made more out of the crystal-balling aspect of the article than should have been made.  I can only claim inexperience there.


 * However, my WP:CORP argument is one I still abide by as the conference was sponsored by and is for News Corporation execs. In the article's current form, I would suggest it be merged into News Corporation rather than being deleted altogether.  I don't think it is entirely non-notable.  Again, had I had more experience at the time, I would have suggested the article be changed and merged rather than deleted.


 * I know you put quite a lot of work into the article and I'm sorry that we disagree about it. --Cassavau 18:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The initial afd on crystal balling was correct, I incorrectly had the conference starting in 2008. My fault. --Paul E. Ester 18:42, 5 August 2006 (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.