Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IncentiveWorks

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. Courcelles (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IncentiveWorks

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

Brief stub about a convention with no strong evidence of passing WP:EVENT; the article, as written, just asserts that the thing exists and parks it on two primary sources with no evidence of any reliable source coverage. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although my searches found results here, here, here and here and the Highbeam link say it's "Canada's leading trade show for the meetings and incentives industry" but, in that case, I would've expected better coverage thus there's not much to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The largest trade show for so specialized an industry would not be expected to generate much press, and it seems that it hasn't done so. DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 21 September 2015 (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.