Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TEDxSanta Cruz

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 no consensus. Per Bearian's suggestion. No prejudice for speedy re-nomination. Randykitty (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TEDxSanta Cruz[edit]

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

These events, and many other spinoffs of the TED (conference), are not notable per WP:EVENTCRIT guidelines, and as one of many independently organized TEDx events (over 1,500!) worldwide, none may warrant even a brief mention at the TED (conference) article. Coverage in local press indicates existence, but not necessarily notability. Other relevant guidelines include WP:BRANCH, where local chapters/units of national or large organizations generally do not warrant separate articles. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating these other TEDx events for the same reason, and to keep Wikipedia from becoming a conference directory:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not totally against this. I would note that within the 1,500 events there are larger TEDx events that are actually very notable in their communities. There are maybe a couple of dozen city TEDx events that have over 1,000 attendees annually and regularly have online videos with hundreds of thousands of views. These events are full productions with full-time staff and large annual budgets. I think it unfair to lump all of these events in together. Some smaller events are not notable but the larger ones are much more notable than many events that have Wikipedia pages. TED has Level 2 events as a starting point but even that bar may not be stringent enough.ShakyIsles (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After examining the infobox and content as well as the detailed writing style which informs the article, I feel that this entry (along with its 11 inline cites and 1 entry under "External links") provides well-presented information on a known and familiar topic that is of benefit to Wikipedia users. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Looks promotional. Each individual event fails SIGCOV, only one mention in mainstream media (the NYT citation, copy/pasted to each individual article, and which does not mention Auckland) and that only establishes existence, not notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Perhaps redirect to forestall recreation - David Gerard (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. Merge what is salvagable to main TED article. Subconferences seem to fail GNG. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all articles of this type into a List of TEDx conferences. I think there's notability for a group, but for individual events generally do not have enough reliable sourcing. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Start the article and I'll support this :-) - David Gerard (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Merge and delete" isn't possible. I guess that if somebody starts working on the proposed list it's likely going to be a "merge" outcome, otherwise probably "delete". Sandstein 12:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to TED_(conference)#TEDx. If any of these location-specific spinoff events garners significant non-local coverage (for example, a conference that achieved national recognition in some way), then they of course can individually be notable. But per nom's argument, these look to be largely local. I don't believe in mass deleting them, however, as each one should be treated individually. For any of questionable notability, I recommend merging to the TEDx section and moving the information there, and also WP:SPLIT to a separate but linked list if three or four need a place. Yvarta (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge since individually those events fail NEVENT/COMPANY. User:Piotrus under --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I still stand by my "merge" blanket conclusion earlier, but I have some time now to see if any of the events might pass general notability, so will provide individual votes for each below (ongoing for a few minutes): Yvarta (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- TEDxSanta Cruz - Merge to List_of_TEDx_conferences#Santa Cruz. The page is well-developed, so I was disappointed to find very little coverage that wasn't local, although there is some very nice reputable coverage from the area. I would change my vote, if more press were uncovered. Minor coverage here, local here: [1], [2]. I am not sure about the reputation of this publication, but it is significant: [3]. Yvarta (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC) Note: latter publication is local (Good Times (newspaper)). Yvarta (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- TEDxAuckland - ~~Merge~~ to List_of_TEDx_conferences#TEDxAuckland. I did find significant coverage in national publication the New Zealand Herald [4] in 2015, and minor coverage [5] in same publication. Other articles I thought I found turned out to be press releases at Scoop.com [6]. If two or three more quality sources are found, I would change my vote to a strong keep. Yvarta (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (mind change) - it is unfortunately all one publication, but going through the NZ Herald's archives, I did find a number of news stories: [7], [8], [9], and minor coverage here. These are in the Aucklander, which I consider to be a local version, and therefore less helpful: [10], [11], Yvarta (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- TEDxBermuda - Keep (barely barely) per these articles: [12] (Royal Gazette), [13] (The Bermudian), and this source that reads a bit more like a press release: [14].
- TEDxYouth@Doha - Unsure, leaning keep. I regret I am woefully unfamiliar with Qatar's press, and so am not entirely sure these sources are helpful. Some are based on press releases (an inference based on the same content appearing in multiple articles): 1 and 2, although the latter publication appears at first glance to be "reputable" (again, I regret I have no knowledge of major newspapers in Qatar, so I may be mistaken). This source [15] in "Qatar is Booming" seems to be an original (non-press release) article, but I am unfamiliar with the publication. Yvarta (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Back: great coverage of an initiative by the conference [16] here in The National, a UAE publication. A briefer mention of the same initiative [17], in Justthere.qa. Brief government coverage doesn't help with notability, but does show it receives national attention, I suppose. Brief coverage of initiative in Doha News, very reputable-looking significant coverage in iloveqatar.net (with Gulf Times mentioned at bottom of article, as publisher?). Minor reputable mention in The Edge, and what seems to be a reputable article hosted inexplicably on a blogspot domain. Perhaps that is normal in Qatar? I don't know. Final conclusion: still undecided, still leaning towards keep. In my search, I scanned the URLs (and some content) of 120 google hits with "TEDxYouth@Doha" used as the exact search phrase. Yvarta (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- TEDxMcGill - Merge to List_of_TEDx_conferences#TEDxMcGill. I scanned all 150 hits google provided, and saw no significant coverage beyond university publications. I was hoping to find coverage in Globe and Mail or something more local even, but no luck. Yvarta (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- TEDxWarsaw - Unsure how to vote. There appears to be some nice press in Polish, but I am too unfamiliar with the publications in that country to easily judge their usefulness. Yvarta (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as "no consensus" per WP:TRAINWRECK. Renominate individually. SST flyer 10:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect instead as an actual solution, sufficient for removing this article. SwisterTwister talk 18:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Close and start over. The Santa Cruz one appears to be notable; not so sure about the others. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2016 (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.