Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conflux (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conflux (convention)

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

Lacks the non-routine media coverage to pass WP:EVENT. 1292simon (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see how WP:EVENT applies to what appears to be a 52-year history. I suggest that this nomination be returned to the nominator for a fuller workup that considers "What links here", analysis of Google searches, consideration of WP:V, and analysis of potential merge targets. Unscintillating (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I see where this article mentions that the convention is an offshoot of earlier conventions held in the same area. If I'm unable to find that this specific convention isn't notable, does anyone feel like making an article about the older, earlier convention and redirecting this to that? I do want to warn that being a long running event doesn't automatically mean that it's notable. There are a lot of things that are long running, yet don't pass notability guidelines. It's all about coverage in RS when it comes down to it.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what I'm wondering is exactly where this comes into the larger SF convention scene. I'm searching and I'm seeing things that mention that the science fiction convention circuit as a whole has a 52 year history in that area, but this specific con has only been around for about 8-9 years. It's quite common for conventions to spin off of other, earlier conventions and it's even common for the newer convention to possess much of the same staff as the older ones. I'm not entirely seeing where the history of SF conventions in the general area would really merit an automatic keep of this.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I see it now. Here's the basis of the claim: The convention has been made the National Science Fiction convention. It's not the first SF convention, but the latest singular convention to hold this title. I'm heavily leaning towards suggesting that an article get made specifically about the Australian National Science Fiction convention and have this redirect to that. The greater history of the ANSFC isn't exactly going to mean an automatic keep. It's not a small thing exactly, but this just happens to be the convention that holds this title. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Australian National Science Fiction convention upon its creation. Here's the deal: Australia has a national SF convention. This con is the latest one to hold the title, but it's by no means the first. This is slightly different than Mom and Pop convention that runs every year, but the convention is still reliant upon the need for coverage in reliable sourcing. That doesn't really seem to exist in this case. The convention has run for about 8 years now but hasn't really attracted a good deal of mainstream coverage. What I'm suggesting is that a larger article is created for the ANSFC as a whole and this redirect to a subsection of that article. Not all official things are notable, unfortunately, and this seems to be the case here. It's a big con, but there is a lack of coverage from their local press. I'm seeing where the larger convention title as a whole might merit an article, so I'm suggesting a redirect there after its creation, otherwise it's a delete on my end.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For clarity, it appears that the first Conflux was the 2004 edition of the Australian National Science Fiction Convention, held in Canberra. After that, the same organization has continued to hold Conflux as a local SF convention for Canberra, more or less annually. So redirecting to Australian National Science Fiction Convention may not be the right way to go -- most of the Confluxes have not been the Australian National Science Fiction Convention in their years. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... if that's the case then it'd probably be a delete on my end, then. The convention isn't exactly a no-name con, but it's not really a big name con that has received coverage.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:55, 27 January 2013 (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.