Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nano-Net


 * 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,  Nakon  05:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Nano-Net

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A speedy delete tag on the article's first incarnation -- a longer, spammy advertisement -- was declined because the admin felt it was "probably notable." A Google News search contradicts that opinion, with only three press releases on for-pay news wires. It is peculiar for an international technology conference to receive no news coverage whatsoever. Even in this severely truncated version, the article does not meet WP:RS and WP:V standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Pastor Theo (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to nanotechnology for lack of evidence of WP:N. JJL (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to badger you, but the Nano-Net article is about an obscure trade conference, while the nanotechnology article is about a prominent technology. There are other nanotechnology conferences that are well-documented: . This one, sadly, is not, and I think the redirect would not be the correct course of action. Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I found many ghits for Nano(-)Net and all related to nanotechnology, so I feel a rd is reasonable as rds are cheap. I'm not endorsing its use to refer to a conference(s) in particular. JJL (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the article in question is about a conference, not a dictionary term. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment once it's a rd, why would that matter? JJL (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability not established. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a confernce about nano-networks. This is an academic, not an industrial conference, therefore it did not get much publicity on the web, as it is not a B2B conference with 500 participants. It is a non-profit event. Simple google search is not a criterium for judging the value of the conference. Publicilty (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)]] 9:52, 16 April 2009 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Publicilty (talk • contribs)
 * I have to disagree. Even by the standards of an international academic conference, this gathering has no demonstrated notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentI agree that this is a small scale conference. Could you, please, indicate which criterea you use to define notability? Thank you.Publicilty (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)]] 15:01, 16 April 2009 (CET)
 * Basically, being a particularly important established conference series in the field. If an academic conference, importance can, among other things, be judged by the citations to the proceedings of the conference. Since the conference does not in fact plan to formally publish the papers, merely "make them available in a database, the odds of that happening are very low. Incidentally,   there have been several conferences--the article refers only to 2006. but I see links to 2007 and 2008.  DGG (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete on the basis of not being notable, as essentially admitted by the author of the article DGG (talk) 22:39, 22 April 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.