Deletion of Etail Conferences

Comment: When I consider reliably independent in-depth coverage (that seems to be lacking) I generally look for sourcing (from a notability aspect) that is not connected to the subject such as trade magazines or other industry specific magazines. The |"depth" (please read) of coverage is crucial. These trade shows might be a good thing but I picture someone advising Walmart to regularly move all the isles around so people will have to look for what they need and thus impulse buy. Everyone I have ever talked to hates the practice (I don't shop there) but Walmart keeps growing. I picture a trade organization advising car dealers to use "pre-owned" instead of "used" as that is a better word (people absolutely will buy a pre-owned vehicle over a used one) and making the price $24,999 instead of $25,000. The ONE DOLLAR savings will make the price look cheaper and create more sales. I am not going to bust any bubbles in case I were to be the last to !vote. Anyway, I didn't dissect the sources so will refrain from !voting. Good luck
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPROMOTION)

Comment: as unambiguous . Remember that the  policy specifically says {{tq|Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts.}}. The brand new editor's first edits were to the fairly obscure MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist page in an effort to get a known brand spammer removed from the blacklist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Worldwide_Business_Research. This has happened before, when another SPA tried to get the spammer added to the whitelist while editing this specific article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JoeGranata. That's the context here: blocked spammers, and SPAs pushing this conference. The content of the page shows that the company does not meet , as the cited sources are mostly not about the subject, or are from trade journals deriving their content from company-provided material. For example, the Forbes Thau source is about Wal-Mart, and only contains a quote from an eTail employee. Put another way, the coverage is either not significant or not independent. So, delete according to policy, or delete according to guidelines. Either way the result is the same
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PROMO||WP:NOT||WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: promotional article, reads like a promotional brochure  - does not meet  or  - most of the references seem to be about topics covered in the conferences, not reliable sources about the company itself
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPROMOTION||WP:ORGSIG||WP:ORGCRITE)