Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CannaTech

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. I note that the one unambiguous argument to keep comes from an user whose limited editing history is entirely dedicated to the subject of canabis culture. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CannaTech

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

Non-notable event with minimal coverage. Some of the organizations at the event are notable, but the event itself fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see any notabilty. Number 5 7 08:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it probably is notable (as a global event - seems this brand runs world-wide (e.g. a UK event - [1])- as there does seem to be sourcing for this (google news, after filtering out cannatech.news, and filtering out the copious PR material still seems to pass a threshold). The article does definitely need improvement, and I'm not so inclined on this subject and there isn't much worth saving in the current stub.Icewhiz (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although the article lacks substance, there are plenty of reliable resources on the internet to be able to compile a neutral article. This event has gained an international audience and have received in-depth discussion on local reliable and independent sources.[2], [3], [4]--MickeyDangerez (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources, doesn't pass WP:GNG. Chrisswill (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete we are having this discussion due to yet another bogus removal of a speedy nomination (diff). Fails GNG; not notable, created during the cannabis editathon and is the kind of promotional, non-notable thing that events like that can spawn sometimes. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: good call on the questionable speedy contest, I hadn't seen it.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the absence of advanced WikiProject criteria such as WP:NPOT, WP:NWEED, or WP:N420 the GNG says to delete. L3X1 (distænt write) 13:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. It may also be WP:TOOSOON, once it gets more than cursory mention in reliable sources it may cross over into notability. But, not now. Ifnord (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an event / trade conference, and not a notable one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:43, 19 September 2017 (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.