Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PubCon

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PubCon

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

The page is written as an advertisement for the conference and the reference list does not show enough notability to pass GNG. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added 3 books. The article is notable and doesn't look like an advertisement to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ondertitel (talk • contribs) 09:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add these as actual sources to content in the article if you want them to count as references on the page, in addition the first two you added were 1) a compilation of Wikipedia articles (not a reliable reference) and 2) a self-published ebook (not a reliable reference). So far as the other source, it is passing mention at best, and not nearly enough to pass GNG. Jeremy112233 (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam Secret ^account 20:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article reads very much like brochure-style advertising copy. It's pretty much impossible not to see it as spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:44, 30 June 2013 (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.