Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Un-convention

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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Un-convention

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

Per WP:ORG, no significant independent source coverage. Infinity Knight (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, no significant source coverage. Very vague as to what the significance of this type of event is. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro
Speedy Delete Just advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 18:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Going to AFD is a courtesy, because this stub does not make a credible claim of significance. As long as an AFD is running, I won't CSD it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching for reliable, independent sources is difficult since all the hits are about United Nations Conventions on various things. But lacking any such sources, we must delete the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source provided doesn't even support the content of the article. As Cullen indicates, the topic is pretty much un-Googleable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 20:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to creation via AfC draft process, with clear notability. Per nom and all above. Good luck to them on ever SEO-ing their way above a gazillion pages talking about the "United Nations Convention" on everything. I'm not certain, but I think this article is basically an advert for a probably not-yet-notable startup company that possibly didn't think through their name in terms of search engines. It might not be an attempt at an advert, as there's too little there to reach much of a firm conclusion other than on lack of notability. It does meet CSD A7, but I'm content to just let the AfD run. Murph9000 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2016 (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.