Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lift 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. The article currently covers the subject in a manner that relies too much on primary sources to be retained. (Note: This close does not hold prejudice against the article being re-created immediately with proper sourcing.) &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 22:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Lift Conference

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nonnotable event, no independent sources - üser:Altenmann >t 16:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete - overuse of primary sources, not noteworthy in the slightest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.67.39 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 4 January 2016‎
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep A review of news coverage in the link above shows significant, multiple coverage from various news sites. Appears to be a sort of lesser TED-type event that meets WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What news coverage? I see one BBC link - David Gerard (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as it stands (without prejudice) - there's one news link, which is Bill Thompson from the BBC writing up his visit to one. Almost everything else is primary, and the BBC link is the only RS - David Gerard (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * this isn't primary, nor this, nor this, nor this. Some of the coverage is more substantial than others to be sure, but it seems to be enough to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. to be sure. The current state of an article isn't why we delete, unless it's egregiously bad and not worth retaining, as you well know as an admin. I'd argue that is not the case here and of course Afd is WP:NOTCLEANUP. There are indeed too many primary sources but that's a matter for tagging and editing, not deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * First link: total coverage is "Ten submissions feature Bengaluru data, says Johann Recordon, project manager of Lift Conference, which brought the exhibition to India with swissnex India." That's it. Second is a blog (it even calls itself a blog), and reads like a press release or paid blog content. Third is a second piece of RS coverage, yes, thank you. Fourth: total mention is "Seedstars World winner will be announced during the Final Event that will be hosted on the first day of Lift Conference, one of the top innovation and tech conferences in Europe." in a site that calls itself a "blog". This is super-skimpy, and for something claiming such a long record, two RSes ever is dismal. It's also not clear why you're putting self-proclaimed blogs forward as RSes - David Gerard (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Rude Baguette does indeed call itself a "blog," as in "France’s Startup Blog – an English-language publication covering the French tech market." It has an editorial team, I see, and bylined articles. I'd never heard of it but as far as I can see it's RS, it does appear to meet WP:USERG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It reads like a press-release or paid advertorial, which certainly doesn't meet WP:USERG - David Gerard (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If so, that would certainly be a pertinent point. Here's another news story, from the Swiss edition of The Local. Though I do note again that Seedstars the funders rather than the conference is the primary focus. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, that's clearly tangential and doesn't support notability or serve as any sort of usable reference - David Gerard (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is of course a "usable reference," per WP:V at the very least. And ORGDEPTH suggests that mentions like this in multiple sources, when combined with more in-depth coverage, may be of use in establishing notability when combined with more substantial coverage -- though the wording is up to different interpretations. That said, I may change my !vote to neutral if nothing else comes up. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * In fact, I'll go there right now: change to neutral. No one disputes that we have about two strong references establishing notability, then a lot of passing references -- or in the case of the French tech blog, a possibly affiliated source. I think the problem here is how the article has been expanded with so many primary refs, by multiple IP editors, to where it does seem like Wikipedia may be being misused per WP:NOTWEBHOST. This is one case where, if the editors had simply created a balanced short stub, with the bona fide RS that are out there, we wouldn't in all likelihood be at Afd. Because there's enough coverage that this article probably falls just shy of GNG. But in its current state, WP:TNT arguably applies. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've added "without prejudice" to my opinion - David Gerard (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 13:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notability issue addressed. I've added sources to the article's talk page. We should improve, not delete flawed content. 5 incoming wikilinks indicate interest in and potentially notability of this material. ~Kvng (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should improve, if we can. I had impression we could not, in this case. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We could stubify it back to first and last paragraph of the current lead. ~Kvng (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The sources added are literally the bloggy sources from this AFD above - David Gerard (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, nothing new here, I just copied the sources from the discussion above for use later. I now appreciate that is not in agreement that notability has been established. I feel it has and I think the article should be kept and improved. ~Kvng (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2016 (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.