Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BasauriCon

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. May become notable if it gets established, but just after its first event it isn't, yet JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BasauriCon[edit]

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

I'm not sure what's going on here. This article had a prod tag dated 9 October at its initial creation on 17 February ([1]). Jclemens (talk · contribs) declined the prod and it was re-prodded by Rapido (talk · contribs) on 18 February with the rationale "No evidence of notability; new, non-notable convention." Notwithstanding all of this, the article creator left a note on the talk page that hints at an objection to deletion, therefore deletion is not uncontroversial.

I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my rationale above: No evidence of notability; new, non-notable convention. Rapido (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tiny new non-notable convention; coverage is of stars, not convention. (This is really not a convention, but rather more a commercial show: tiered "tickets", etc.) --Orange Mike | Talk 22:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of being notable. Warrah (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 00:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ~~The event has yet to be held, according to the article.~~ Might still become notable, someday, and if so an article might be appropriate - but we're not there yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- correction - look further down; the first was held earlier in February; the "to be held" language is to clarify that it's intended to be annual. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Noted. I've struck that bit, but I think it's still a case of a not-yet-notable event. More independent coverage would fix that, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:08, 24 February 2010 (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.