Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HackMiami

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=HackMiami}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=HackMiami}})

Subject does not seem to be notable upon search - no reliable, secondary sources can be found. PROD was proposed & contested in the past for the same reason, so AfD is the only course of action available here. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, and Florida. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Keep - there has been some secondary coverage, most notably, Forbes and The Rolling Stone, but the article's tone should be improved. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Keep - numerous articles and information security listings talk about HackMiami. Some are listed in this article already. Many notable people have talked and participated in this event and has been going on for over a decade.

:large sponsors such as T-Mobile have sponsored this event and have a sizable following and was even on the cover of rollingstone H477r1ck (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:

::Delete - This article appears to be promotional in nature, as evidenced by its edit history and previous discussions at Articles for Deletion. A cursory search reveals that the subject, H477r1ck, is actually James Ball, who serves on the board of HackMiami. This raises concerns about a potential conflict of interest, given HackMiami's status as a for-profit organization with a history of using Wikipedia for self-promotional purposes, notably to advertise their conference. Furthermore, the article contains citations that are either unreliable or missing altogether, which compromises its overall reliability and neutrality. In light of these issues, I recommend deletion of this article. LauraQuora (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - There are many articles about this topic, which makes it notable. Sources are fine. Citadelian (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:

:

• Delete per nom. These keep votes are from new users where there's obviously some offsite discussion to bring users here. – The Grid (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - Are the sources in the room with us? There's some decent coverage in Rolling Stone, but I didn't see more. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. The Rolling Stone coverage is good. The Forbes article is not really relevant - it's about a specific hack that was to be demonstrated at the conference. So that's not a GNG pass. My own cursory search didn't turn up anything else. -- asilvering (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.