Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daigacon (2nd nomination)
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 no consensus. Majorly (o rly?) 00:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daigacon and re-created apparently on the basis that it happened. WP:ITSREAL is not an inclusion criterion. I don't see any evidence of actual notability, either - it's a convention, it happened, that's what conventions do. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as NN. I've been concom on several small to large SF conventions in my day, and a large multiyear con is significant. A first year college anime gathering isn't. Come back ten years from now. Ravenswing 19:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I won't make a comment about if it should be kept or deleted since I've been involved in tagging the recreated articles since the last AfD. But I do protest the restoration of the old version of the article and then overwriting it with a new one. I've not known of a case where an old article was restored after going through AfD only to have a completely new article replace it in the next edit. --Farix (Talk) 21:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete They got some news coverage, which is something I'd like to see for more anime cons, but with just 200 people (and no reference cited for that), it doesn't appear as if there is anything all that notable about this convention for its first year. There are larger, more established anime conventions in the region, such as SugoiCon. In my experience, 200 is on the low side for convention attendance, although it's somewhat typical for a first year event of this type. --PatrickD 05:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I created this article and am the one currently trying to make it better. This article is not the worst one on wikipedia and has more content than many. I tried to model the the entry after the other convention articles. Many of which have close to the same number of attendees and have been around a few months more. List of anime conventions. I am sorry if I caused any issues by trying to help. Thank you. --silentsam84 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From that list you cite: "The following is a list of articles of anime conventions from around the world that meet the following criteria: attendances of more than 2,000 people, have been in existence for at least 2 years and is at least actively planning its third year, and runs at least two days ..." If your convention qualifies, please let us know! Ravenswing 20:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Although this article may have more content and be better written than many other articles on Wikipedia, that isn't a valid reason to keep it. I could write an article with a complete and detailed history of my mousepad collection...but that doesn't mean it's notable. Likewise, I could write up the entire biography of my grandmother in a well-written article, but there would be no reason for such an article to exist. --PatrickD 20:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To discuss in a reasonable matter is understandable, however we all know why one's grandmother and mousepad collection aren't notable; yet, in judging this, and many other entries, I've noticed that people have forgot this clause on the notability page where notability is "not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"". In addition, "notability is generally permanent." However, the comments so far seem to forget these basic stalwarts of wiki. While I myself will not vote on this matter, I remind those that will and have thus far, to remember this and to forget your own individualized concepts of notability, as far too many articles have been discarded due to what I can only imagine are personal perceptions, and not wiki's standards, which of course all editors are supposed to abide by. Millermz 04:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It appears that Daigacon has the appropriate independent sources to be considered notable; aside from the ones already cited, it's also listed in AnimeCons.com, which is known as a reliable source by several people here as per previous discussions. I'm confused as to why this is almost immediately being discounted in the first 'delete' comments. I admit that the lack of a cited source for its attendance number is hurting the article right now, but that can be fixed by either finding a source, or the con organizers reporting the number to an established reliable source. Presuming it's correct, Bowling Green, KY is not large town. By comparison, it's about the same size as Eau Claire, WI (the city were No Brand Con is held). One notable item of No Brand Con's existence in its first year is its relative geographic isolation from major urban centers and other large cons, which made it an attractive alternative for those with limited access to transporation, limited funds to attend such a massive event, or parents who don't feel comfortable lettig highschoo-aged kids travel without their direct supervision, or to an urban area at all. The existence of SugoiCon was mentioned, but its distance from Bowling Green is comparable to the distance from Eau Claire to Chicago (where Anime cons such as Anime Central are held). The fact that there's a viable alternative to the "big con" in the same state that's more geographically convenient for anime fans I believe IS notable. I also have interest in fan-run conventions, comparing them to ones run by corporate backers, even not-for-profits. A con run by a school (or University) might not be notable in and of itself, but the fact that it was a three-day event with industry guests (as opposed to a day-long club event with no industry guests), and that got this kind of news coverage should be. The local news sources certainly thought it was notable enough, which seems to me to be all WP:Notability requires. I'm worried that the critera for being added to List of anime conventions is somehow bleeding over as criteria for this article to exist at all. ~ SeanOrange 18:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- it's also listed in AnimeCons.com, which is known as a reliable source by several people here as per previous discussions. I'm confused as to why this is almost immediately being discounted in the first 'delete' comments. Because it is a directory site which attempts to list every known anime convention, AnimeCons.com is not counted towards establishing notability. --Farix (Talk) 11:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, but that doesn't diminish that there are three other independent sources which reported on it, which -- again -- is all WP:Notability requires. ~ SeanOrange 18:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Beyond that, no one is contesting whether this con exists. What we're disputing is its notability. That there are fans who prefer small intimate conventions is evident, but that doesn't make those cons notable any more than the small towns in which I prefer to vacation over famous and giant resorts. Most cons run the weekend, most cons have some manner of VIP guests, and the local newspaper and TV station usually can be counted upon to give the costumed weirdos thirty seconds of air time or a photo on page 12. Ravenswing 13:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware of what the argument is, which is why I'm trying to drive home the point that the article's cited sources are the sole required basis of its notability as per WP:Notability. No one has yet argued against this point since I brought it up. The principal contention against notability seems to be that SugoiCon is a larger convention in the same state. What makes Daigacon notable in this regard is that, unlike SugoiCon, it is actually both planned AND held in Kentucky; the fact that Sugoicon is held within the Kentucky state boundaries is incidental to the layout of the Cincinatti metropolitan area (details on the talk:List of anime conventions#Kentucky_Question page). DaigaCon would then only be superseded in this regard by OMG!!Con. However, again as per WP:Notability, "Notability is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance'." I suspect the lack thereof does not exclude notability. I believe a "by fans, for fans" convention -- planned, funded, and successfully run outside the auspices of a sponsoring corporation or unrelated not-for-profit organization -- should always be considered notable. This is possibly, also an argument for an OMG!!Con article not to be deleted, should one ever be created, however I can find no information on the Tri-State Anime Promotion Society apart from what exists on the convention website. Given the name (and if supported by the proper sources), Daigacon might very well be the first anime con held in the state that was planned and held by Kentucky residents. That's pretty darn notable. ~ SeanOrange 18:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case you're not paying attention to the arguments. SugiCon was noted as a larger convention, but none of the several editors suggesting Delete have done so using the fact that SugiCon is a larger con within the same state as any manner of argument, let alone a principal one. Our contention is that despite who runs it, where it is run, how many cons are held in the hosting state or any other factor irrelevant to our argument, a first year convention with only 200 attendees is prima facie non-notable, on that basis and that alone. Heck, I ran a SF university con with numerous pros as guests (David Drake, Jane Yolen, Steven Brust, Hal Clement, Chip Delany, Tanith Lee, Susan Shwartz, Walter Hunt among many others), attendance never less than 500 and which went on for over a decade, and I don't consider the 1990s NotJustAnotherCons notable. Ravenswing 19:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PatrickD very much explicitly cited SugoiCon's proximity and larger attendance as the basis for his vote. Attendance alone is not sufficent criteria for proving notability, as evidenced in the AfD nomination of No Brand Con. On the basis of WP:Notability, the multiple independent sources already available in the Daigacon article prove that it is notable. Despite the responses I've accrued, no one has attempted to refute this point. Also, I did as you suggested in your user page and took five minutes to follow up a few Google hits to realize the genuine notability of the subject. (results). The report by A Fan's View is fairly significant, given that they traveled to this first-year con over two more established cons (NohCon and Naka-Kon). By contrast, there is no report on file for No Brand, a larger and more established (and supposedly more notable) convention. I'm wondering how many more sources must be gathered before this convention's notability is acknowledged, but here are a few just to make sure: Digital Frontier Plus, Anime News Network, and yaplog.jp (I don't know how many U.S. Anime cons, regardless of size, make news in Japan, but I'm guessing not very many). ~ SeanOrange 20:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case you're not paying attention to the arguments. SugiCon was noted as a larger convention, but none of the several editors suggesting Delete have done so using the fact that SugiCon is a larger con within the same state as any manner of argument, let alone a principal one. Our contention is that despite who runs it, where it is run, how many cons are held in the hosting state or any other factor irrelevant to our argument, a first year convention with only 200 attendees is prima facie non-notable, on that basis and that alone. Heck, I ran a SF university con with numerous pros as guests (David Drake, Jane Yolen, Steven Brust, Hal Clement, Chip Delany, Tanith Lee, Susan Shwartz, Walter Hunt among many others), attendance never less than 500 and which went on for over a decade, and I don't consider the 1990s NotJustAnotherCons notable. Ravenswing 19:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware of what the argument is, which is why I'm trying to drive home the point that the article's cited sources are the sole required basis of its notability as per WP:Notability. No one has yet argued against this point since I brought it up. The principal contention against notability seems to be that SugoiCon is a larger convention in the same state. What makes Daigacon notable in this regard is that, unlike SugoiCon, it is actually both planned AND held in Kentucky; the fact that Sugoicon is held within the Kentucky state boundaries is incidental to the layout of the Cincinatti metropolitan area (details on the talk:List of anime conventions#Kentucky_Question page). DaigaCon would then only be superseded in this regard by OMG!!Con. However, again as per WP:Notability, "Notability is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance'." I suspect the lack thereof does not exclude notability. I believe a "by fans, for fans" convention -- planned, funded, and successfully run outside the auspices of a sponsoring corporation or unrelated not-for-profit organization -- should always be considered notable. This is possibly, also an argument for an OMG!!Con article not to be deleted, should one ever be created, however I can find no information on the Tri-State Anime Promotion Society apart from what exists on the convention website. Given the name (and if supported by the proper sources), Daigacon might very well be the first anime con held in the state that was planned and held by Kentucky residents. That's pretty darn notable. ~ SeanOrange 18:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- it's also listed in AnimeCons.com, which is known as a reliable source by several people here as per previous discussions. I'm confused as to why this is almost immediately being discounted in the first 'delete' comments. Because it is a directory site which attempts to list every known anime convention, AnimeCons.com is not counted towards establishing notability. --Farix (Talk) 11:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Initially, I thought this would be a fruitless argument, as you can probably tell by my caustic comments above; however, SeanOrange is able to make points much more fluid then I, and indeed since I'm not the only one who feels as such, I believe it's only proper to vote as I, one of many contributors to wiki (of course), sees fit too, and that's with saying as I did previously, that notability is not based on personal perception, as much as it is based on the wiki notability principle that, WP:Notability, "notability is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance'." (How many times must this be repeated?) In the end, permanency is one of the issues, and I've already seen evidence of planning for a 2nd convention (as mentioned with the Full Effect article, [1]), and also, after doing some light research, I've found that there will be a MSN.com Japan article about Daigacon as well, and as SeanOrange said having Japanese media focus on a convention is probably rare (plus another reference, right?). Aside from that, I believe that we should recognize a decently-written, and especially fairly well-referenced article when we see it since if the scrutiny against Daigacon were to continue, then we'd have legitmacy to take almost all of the convention pages down because when I clicked randomly through the List of anime conventions page I didn't come across one that didn't have a references problem (if not more), and I clicked on about 15 different convention's pages! Ultimately I guess, all I can say is to remember that deletion is the easy route, while constructing something better than before, that's where the editing talent comes in.... Millermz 13:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sean Orange makes convincing arguments for the retention of this article, and it already has numerous reliable sources. Burntsauce 23:28, 16 March 2007 (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.