Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIEW 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 speedy keep. Nomination's withdrawn and no votes for deletion. Further discussion on contents can of course continue on the article talk page. Cavarrone 08:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

VIEW Conference

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional, (tagged for 5 years) non notable event, supported by a single reference to their own website. Fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If others are happy, I am willing to withdraw the AFD after Cavarrone's re-write with secondary sources, albeit IIalian ones. Theroadislong (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will keep on expanding the article and adding sources in the next days. --Cavarrone 14:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I need to look more in depht through the sources but at first glance there are 6,760 "recent" news articles in Google News and several additional hundreds or thousand articles in Google News archives. Surely the page needs a strong cleanup or even to be stubbified, but apparently there is enough material for a claim of notability and for writing a decent article. Cavarrone 20:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's plausible that there could be an article about a notable thing at this title, but if the present page at this title were "rewritten" to focus on RSes it would literally not exist. If you're volunteering to write the article ... - David Gerard (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello You can find all the references of this page here: http://www.viewconference.it/ and View Conference has also an Italian Wikipedia Page: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/VIEW_Conference, that I used for writing the English page.  Can you explain why you want to delete this article? This is not a promotional page, it is an informative one, and I was trying to update it for the current year (2016). I understood that Wikipedia is a space to inform people and make them learn something.    Thank Elisa C  —Preceding undated comment added 11:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not concerned with what the conference says about itself, only what the secondary sources say. Theroadislong (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

* http://redchilliesvfx.com/rcvfx/#!/news/view-conference-2016 * https://twitter.com/Cinetvlandia/status/780664801215311872 * http://variety.com/2016/film/global/trolls-directors-view-conference-1201861829/ * http://escapestudiosanimation.blogspot.it/2016/09/escape-studios-is-going-to-view.html?spref=fb * http://www.guerrestellari.net/2016/09/28/roger-guyett-effetti-speciali-risveglio-della-forza-view-conference-2016/ * https://vfxblog.com/2016/09/28/the-vfx-supe-who-doesnt-really-think-about-vfx-and-how-you-can-learn-from-him/ * http://www.quotidianopiemontese.it/2016/09/26/i-maestri-del-cinema-e-del-gaming-digitale-a-torino-per-view-conference-2016/ * http://moonbotstudios.com/news/adam-volker-view-conference-24-28-oct-2016/ * http://www.afnews.info/wordpress/2016/09/26/non-spingete-alla-view-ce-posto-per-tutti-dal-24-al-28-ottobre/ But how can I do it without make any mistake? Thanks a lot Elisa C talkElisa C (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to add some information that is possible to find in this articles:
 * Please note that blogs and Twitter accounts are not considered to be reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, articles are not indescriminate collections of links. As noted above, there are thousand sources available about the subject, but we only care about the ones which are reliable, relevant and useful to back the contents. Cavarrone 16:20, 2 October 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.