Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HigherEdCamp

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 , referenced only to blogs. fintler argues it meets some arbitrary standard of vent importance without justifying that standard, and his cited source is a blog. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HigherEdCamp[edit]

Previously speedied for no assertion of notability. Two sentence (now sourced) stub that still does not assert notability. Of the four sources, three are blog entries, one is behind a paywall, none are WP:RS. - 2 ... says you, says me 04:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it is notable, there should be coverage by reliable 3rd party references. Blogs are not always the best sources of information.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 07:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google[1] shows no signs of notability. Not a single result on Google News[2]. — Rankiri (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's an event sponsored by an Ivy League school (University of Pennsylvania), and had approx 90 people from over 30 different schools present. It was notable enough to have a professor fly in from Dartmouth for it. TechnicallyPhilly is used as a source on several other wikipedia articles and is an interview with an organizer of the event (primary source?). fintler (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to this, Technically Philly is a four-month-old technology blog. I believe additional sourcing is required to meet the inclusion criteria. — Rankiri (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.