Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Meetings


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Global Meetings

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Even though categories and lists can co-exist, this list of each and every meeting (with a 'major attendance' entry standard decided on its own) is too generic, too wide, and too expansive an area to be consolidated through one term "Global Meetings". Also, it's not quite clear what would qualify as global and what would not. Given the work done on the article, I was two minded about a CSD/prod. Either delete the article or create an expansive category perhaps.   ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  17:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Good try but doesn't quite make it. Original research is required to decide if a meeting is global enough. Wolfview (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A good idea on first thought, but then you realize it's unmaintainable and like Wolf said, requires original research. --mboverload @ 16:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

  ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ , Wolfview, • Gene93k, mboverload Thank you guys for your criticism, feedback and input. I think you make some valid points. I hope we can communicate/collaborate to come up with the best possible outcome. I think the core problems come down to this:


 * expansive category (The critique being that the article is too generic, too wide, and too expansive an area). I think it is encyclopedic and useful to create an article that is NOT-comprehensive, and is instead exclusive.  We already have exhaustive lists of events. The idea is not to create a list of all global events, indeed that would be 10 of 1,000s of events.  The need is for a leading events page.

--taylorluker —Preceding undated comment added 18:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC).  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * categories and list co-existing There are already exhaustive lists and/or categories for political forums & industry. The limitations with these is that I can't, as a user seeking information, go to one place and find a definitive list of the main reoccurring events by industry/sector. Neither is done in the form of a ranked lists or unranked list (exclusive to the main events). That I believe is what is needed. There are two ways to determine what is a leading event. First, by a common metric (such at attendance), which is objective.  Second, you could determine what is leading, by a consensus of insiders/outsiders.  An example would be the World Economic Forum. This clear consensus forms when users (filtering and taking into account essentially all variables) concedes the importance of the event).  Seeing a mining event with 40k attendance would not be featured on this list, because mining is not a mainstream event, attendance is too low and in the grand scheme of things this event is insignificant.
 * global meetings- Perhaps the name is wrong, but the idea is simple, for research and user purposes there should be one place where a person can go to find the main definitive flagship meetings for a particular area. Wether it be for cars, global politics etc. To date, I don't think this need has been satisfied. The inclusion of "global" simply applies looking worldwide and not a regionally, which I don't think is a problem. The term global may be misleading, but in fact any event that is a leading event (has major global attendance) is a leading event.  Perhaps the article should be called leading events.  Again the term "global enough" is false, instead "important" or "leading" is more accurate.
 * original research I don't personally believe original research is needed. The collaborative nature of Wikipedia serves as the vetting and research mechanism in my opinion.  For example is the World Economic Forum a major event in world politics? Yes, without a doubt.  Do I know this due to original research? No, I know this due to the popularity and because it is ingrained culturally in world politics.  The same is true of events like E3. Tons of websites cover E3 making events like this the informal, unofficially recognized leading events. I don't see how it is unmaintainable.  On a practical level, many of this events achieve global importance and remain there and reoccur on a yearly basis.  Surely, the list is evolving and never fully complete (nor is any list).  But this is a practical and simple hurdle. I am not attempting to present original research on global events, but simply a reference that makes a best attempt to represent an on-the-ground consensus of leading events.
 * two minded about a CSD/prod- I am unclear on this phrase, could somebody please explain.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. According to the information provided above, the determining factor resulting in inclusion on Wikipedia involves the introduction of POV. What is "important" and/or "leading" to one person may not be the standard for another. Cindamuse (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2010 (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.