Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icon (Iowa science fiction 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 snowball keep. lifebaka++ 15:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Icon (Iowa science fiction convention)[edit]

(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) 10:59, 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) 11:09, 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]

Keep - oldest science fiction convention in Iowa, well-known in the field; like most such articles, could use some more references. I too feel that a WP:POINT is being made by these nominations. (Full disclosure: I was Fan Guest of Honor at this convention one year, along with Harry Turtledove.) --Orange Mike | Talk 12:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Orange Mike Tentontunic (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per added sourcing showing this to be one of the oldest cons in the country. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's also the largest sci-fi convention in the state, per the source I just added. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - I'd never seen that article before. blushes --Orange Mike | Talk 17:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now we know why they call you Orange Mike. :) —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, especially with new refs added -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage shown to satisfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient third-party coverage, event has longevity and isn't just a one-time con down at the local Marriott meeting room with a few hundred fans. I'm afraid I may have precipitated this action with my AfD nom of MystiCon, a new con in Virginia that split off from a previous con. At the risk of being "pointy," there are some cons which are notable and others which are not. We apparently have a great need to establish notability parameters specific to science fiction conventions. Anyone who wants to start this off (Hello, Orange Mike!), let me know. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- standards for SF cons - well, you've got a point. The sneer-phrases like "down at the local Marriott" don't help: not everybody can afford to meet at expensive conference centers or get hosted by universities; I can point to where taverns once stood here in downtown Milwaukee, where the APWU and the NALC were founded. Age/frequency of occurrence is more relevant than attendance numbers (commercial shows often get the raw numbers); meaningful coverage in the mundane press (harder to get than you'd think), and the SF press (Locus, Ansible and File 770, with maybe SFSite a weak fourth); mention in prominent fanzines (repeated Hugo winners and nominees); lengthy discussion (not just, "Hey, I'm Pro GoH at ThisNewCon next weekend!") in websites and blogs of particularly notable authors, editors and critics; status as an independent event run by an ongoing non-commercial organization, rather than the throwaway commercial shows run by companies: these are the standards that come to mind. I really think we need to watch also for a bias agains non-U.S. conventions; in some countries, that they exist at all is itself slightly notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 6 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.