Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midwest Bisexual Lesbian Gay Transgender Ally College 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. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Midwest Bisexual Lesbian Gay Transgender Ally College Conference
Just seems to be a random conference. No external news coverage other than press releases from Indiana University from a cursory search. Spinach Monster (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - the only coverage appears to be in the college paper. -- Whpq (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable keynote speakers and performers makes it notable. Rescue? Bearian (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are not many hits for this on Google (~600), but I went through the first few pages anyway. They were mainly simple informational listings with time, date and basic details, which do nothing to establish notability, blog listings and the like, which are not reliable, and a press release which appears to be mirrored a few places. I found no evidence of notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Doctorfluffy. There is a lack of sources that give it notability. Tavix (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep delete - The page seems to barely satisfy the guideline for "multiple, non-trivial mentions by third party media" - . Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - How so? Most of the newspapers listed are campus papers.  And based on the text, are either passing mentions or event announcements.  -- Whpq (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Simply the fact that there was a conference does not make it notable. Of those "sources" you found, is there any of them that show notability? Tavix (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - you're right. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Legitmate conference organization notable for their efforts in this area. EagleFan (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - What sources establish this notability? -- Whpq (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep articles in several university newspapers, and the Herald Times. I moved the conference list to the talk page. Ikip (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, this AfD has been listed on WikiProject_LGBT_studies Ikip (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Local or regional conferences are very rarely notable. They should require more than minimal sourcing: I think one wouldneedto show they have received national-level attention. References are only from the college town paper where it's held, which is not sufficient. The General Notability guideline makes no more sense when used in a positive direction than a negative, if it permits articles like this. Typically, we've been getting around it by saying the sources are not sufficiently independent or not reliable as a factor for notable, since they indiscriminately cover all local events--as here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * I also found an article from the Herald Times. Ikip (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think that an article with potential to pass Wikipedia's basic content policies (NPOV, OR, V, NOT) should nevertheless be deleted because you personally don't find the topic notable, then you should either rethink the idea of notability as an inclusion criterion, or accept the GNG. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sourcing can be beefed up -- All citations in use appear to be self-published material (blogs, a wiki, even the student newspaper one is a press release), the Herald-Times reference is un-usable afaik due to requiring subscription, Google News has 1 usable citation in this (unless student press isn't usable), but even this news article is mainly about a funding controversy by the student senate, so not sure if this is enough to hang the entire article on. Am sure this is a great conference, but without better sourcing, it is offering little more than their own self-published info with a Monobook skin. Outsider80 (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No problem that the Herald Times is subscription only, but i don't think one such article establishes notability.YobMod 13:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subscription-only doesn't matter, as long as it's verifiable. Multiple independent refs (granted, not as many as I'd like to see), notable speakers.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment' - Which refernences are you basing your opinion on? There hasn't really been anything specific that has been pointed out as a good source.  The only candidate appears to be something behind a pay wall and there is insufficient information to determine if it is an article about the conference, a passing mention, or an event announcement.  And even if it were about the conference, that remains the only source. -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Self-promotion of non-notable organization, looks like using Wikipedia as a means of activism. Netrat (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Only one reliable source, not enough for establishing notability.--Sloane (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2009 (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.