Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Think Again Conclave

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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Think Again Conclave[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No reliable external secondary sources to prove notability of the article topic. Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 09:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What a nicely formatted piece of spammy add. Sorry, no coverage in any reliable sources. We are not a catalogue of web pages, or web video lecture/conferences/whatever that is. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]| reply here .} 09:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Objection.The page was meant to be used as an educating tool for the people who want to attend the conclave or know about it's past history. I have no vested interest in the event and am merely trying to help others like me who were confused whether to attend the event or not. With regards to the correctness and the reliability of the sources, I am of the opinion that they are enough evidence to the existence of the Conclave. Also, the correctness of the data can also be verified at www.bits-apogee.org, which is the official website of the event. I think you were completely unjustified and hasty in your assessment calling the article a spammy piece of 'add'. Also, the essence of an encyclopedia is to make people aware about stuff which I think is exactly what I catered to. I have not attempted to misuse Wikipedia in any way. Also, if you say that organizations that organize lectures should not be allowed to have WIkipedia entries, I would say that would be unjust. By that logic, there should be no page of the TED Conferences, the Royal Society Lectures and others of the like. Please do consider my arguments seriously. (unsigned by anon)
DELETE per WP:ARTSPAM. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Advice - What do you think I should do to improve the article? The language is pretty neutral and the references are true to the best of my knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhairikfuletra (talk • contribs) 16:06, 4 March 2015 (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.