Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-Con
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All-Con (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable convention. There is nothing in the article that establishes why this convention is important or what makes it stands out from all the others. Wikipedia is not a Directory and the article serves primarily to promote the subject «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as nominator is mass-nominating a long list of science fiction conventions with the same cookie-cutter rationale, not grounded in facts or policy, without regard to content or sourcing (plus List of science fiction conventions), apparently as a result of this discussion. Notability is not a competition to "stand out from all the others". - Dravecky (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My same what now? You nominated 13 articles for deletion in 19 minutes so while I'll assume in good faith that you thoroughly investigated each article, searched for sources, and worked to improve the article, as per WP:BEFORE, at less than 2 minutes per article nominated I do have to question how thorough any research might have been. It appears you're making a WP:POINT. - Dravecky (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dravecky, your logic is hard to grasp—the research could have all been done prior to the first nomination—that's certainly how I work with a batch of articles. Bongomatic 01:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The complete absence of any tagging or prior edits to the nominated batch of articles by the nominator strongly indicates that the principles of WP:BEFORE were not followed but the nominator can clear up this matter with a simple declaration. - Dravecky (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dravecky, your logic is hard to grasp—the research could have all been done prior to the first nomination—that's certainly how I work with a batch of articles. Bongomatic 01:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My same what now? You nominated 13 articles for deletion in 19 minutes so while I'll assume in good faith that you thoroughly investigated each article, searched for sources, and worked to improve the article, as per WP:BEFORE, at less than 2 minutes per article nominated I do have to question how thorough any research might have been. It appears you're making a WP:POINT. - Dravecky (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sufficient mainstream press coverage shown to satisfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very, very weak keep. The sources are decent, but it comes close to my barbershop quartet convention rule of thumb: Would a convention of barbershop singers of a similar size, attendance factors and venue be considered notable as well? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - mass-nominating articles on weak grounds doesnt work. as in this case.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Unscintillating (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2011 (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.