Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queer Collaborations

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queer Collaborations

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an annual conference, which makes no particularly strong claim of notability beyond the fact that it exists. This is "referenced" solely to a linkfarm of external links to its own self-published content about itself rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage to get it over WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:EVENT. As always, every event that exists is not automatically entitled to use Wikipedia to promote itself -- but neither the text nor the quality of referencing are offering strong reasons why this would qualify for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-published sources have been used for promoting this event and nothing more than this can be found. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major national conference going back decades - important part of Australian LGBT history. Needs cleanup, not deletion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep unreferenced articles just because somebody asserts that the topic is "major" and "important" — what would actually need to be shown to get this kept is that reliable source coverage actually exists for it to be cleaned up with. Media coverage about this is who has to tell us that it's "major" and "important" enough to have an encyclopedia article — an unreferenced assertion of importance is not enough all by itself, because anybody could simply say that about anything if they didn't actually have to show the sources to prove it. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources proving notability, and WP:PRIMARY seems to be violated a lot here. Potentially a violation of WP:SOAP. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete reluctantly. It is very easy to find references to this event going back over many years but they all seem to be non mainstream and-or not sufficiently independent. To me it looks like a case of systemic bias in main stream media - hence it fails on lack of WP:NEXIST to support GNG. (Not the first time WP falls victim to its own well intentioned policies.) Aoziwe (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2018 (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.