Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fetish Con

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fetish Con[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Looks to fail NEVENT. Created by a promotional SPA. Only -local- coverage, no evidence of wider significance, or, really any significance. WP is not a directory of conventions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Even if you 100% discount local coverage, there's some nontrivial stuff in Rolling Stone and, according to the Chicago Tribune, a trade-published book America Unzipped: In Search of Sex and Satisfaction where it features heavily. Also seeing some Business Insider stuff, although obviously that's not quite so unimpeachable. Meanwhile, the local coverage is extensive and provides material for a much bigger and better article than the current one when coupled with the broader sourcing online and in print. Vaticidalprophet 20:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I second Vaticidalprophet, there is (admittedly limited) wider coverage and a wealth of local coverage with which the article could be improved. Jthekid15 (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2021 (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.