Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schmooze and Booze

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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schmooze and Booze

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

A networking event at which a couple of hundred journalists attend a pub in an English city. Certainly not the size or scope of organization I'd expect to be considered notable; 3 of the sources are very weak (own website, a youtube interview, a podcast) and the more "reliable" sources look like trivial coverage (the Press Gazette articles). TheGrappler (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. With all due respect to whoever created this Article, I'm pretty sure I am more notable than the Schmooze and Booze event, not as The Mysterious El Willstro that is but in my real name. I have no Wiki Article, of my own at least, so that is saying something. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The article was never tagged for deletion so consider this the first week of discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was using Huggle to automate the nomination - any idea what went wrong here? In particular, why the {{subst:afd1}} didn't get put on the article? TheGrappler (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to be notable. Certainly the meager coverage given in the references doesn't show it to be so. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically just a private party. I'm sure it's great fun, but we are an encyclopedia, not Myspace. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:09, 28 January 2011 (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.