Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charleston Conference

Charleston Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails GNG and EVENT. Nothing immediately noticeable on Google News, didn't see any external coverage on their website. If someone can find some more external claims to notability, I will withdraw my nom. Figured this one deserved more than a prod. South Nashua (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:GNG. I could not locate any additional external claims of notability. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's coverage out there. Library publications cover the conference regularly (Library Journal, American Libraries) as well as local publications (Charleston City Paper). The conference is purposefully a low-key affair, and doesn't garner a lot of press, but it is well-regarded in the library world. The Interior (Talk) 16:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• South Nashua, it looks like there are three independent sources in the article now. Do you want to withdraw this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WhatamIdoing: Sure, works for me. Sorry if I jumped the gun here, glad I was wrong and this article could be saved. South Nashua (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per persuasive WP:HEYMANNbyUser:The Interior.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nom has withdrawn this (see "glad I was wrong and this article could be saved"). Why did you relist it again? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 17 May 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.