Talk:No Brand Con

Possible sources








Original Research Issue
Being a member of this group, I know that No Brand Con planning staff are notorious for not distributing press releases. As a result, secondary, verifiable sources are few and far between. Even reliable sources, such as AnimeCons.com, are often fed by No Brand Con staff, backed up by information readily available on the website.

I believe the self-referencing sources that are used fall under the first exception for: WP:SELFPUB. Due to their inherently self-referencing nature, NoBrandVerse specifics and other details are not published outside of the convention website, internal convention materials, or myriad video sources (sometimes available on YouTube and similar sites, where applicable).

I suppose what can fall under contention here is whether or not the inclusion of such details is relevant to an encyclopedia entry. I think the fact that No Brand Con has a continuous, annual storyline is academically interesting, and can be used to compare against otehr conventions. But, again, the proper details can only be found in con-referenced materials, as already (properly) cited. SeanOrange 20:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I don't dispute that No Brand Con itself is worthy of a Wikipedia article, I don't believe that the NoBrandVerse information should be taking up so much of the article. Unless there are third-party sources for this information, it seems to go against WP:RS.  The only sources listed for that section are No Brand Con itself...which is essentially a self-published source.  Perhaps marking this as "original research" isn't the most appropriate choice of tags, but I felt that it qualified considering that it was all either unsourced or referring to NBC's own site.  --PatrickD 23:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought you were getting at. I think it should suffice to say that the con has storylines and has characters, and leave it at that, yes?  That's what I get for building on what came before and getting carried away, I guess... hahaha ~ SeanOrange 00:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No Brand Verse
I've deleted the entire No Brand Verse as it was based entirely on primary sources and contained a great deal of original research as well. The section was also undue weight as it appeared that was the only thing significant the convention. However, this article should be about the convention and its history and development and not about the No Brand Verse. --Farix (Talk) 18:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding a revert war re 'first anime con in wisconsin' and founders
West Con, I believe, was an anime-oriented con. I'm not sure what one needs to define a con as an anime con, but I believe West Con fit the bill. We got our guest from West Con, if you'll recall. Given that NBC was started largely as a response to the fall of West Con and the ebarrasing flop that was StrDexCon (spits), and also given that NBC was not initially focussed solely on anime, I'd say that the title of 'first Wisconsin anime con' is still up for debate. For completness' sake I will bring up that GenCon was demonstrably not an anime con, at least insofar as its run in WI goes.

Furthermore, Ghaleon was at West Con and in the infamous hotel room when we discussed the idea of starting our own con. He was also a major participant in the first year and present at the Otaku meetings where NBC was discussed. Again, I'm not sure how one specifically defines co-founder, but he appears to fit the bill in my eyes. The real issue is that if you try to draw lines in the sand based on physical evidence, most of us from the early days wouldn't be considered co-founders. Indeed at the first planning meeting it was just me and Gojira. I remember only because I barely knew him and it was incredibly awkward. For that matter, I wrote and championed the constitution of AAS and went with Larry to get the required advisor. My name was the only one on the account at UWEC for some time and my paypal account was the one eventually converted over to the con business account. And believe me, I am the absolute last person to claim that I did the bulk of the work. Far from it. But as far as objective measures of organizational foundation, the paper trail seems to suggest that it was all me as a result of my campus organizational connections and experience. I seriously doubt you agree with that definition of founder, and neither do I by a long shot. But it begs the question, how do you define NBC founder? aremisasling (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WestCon was a scifi convention, not an anime con. No Brand Con is irrefutably the first marketed anime convention in the state, and has been advertised as such for years (hence the "Wisconsin's Premiere Anime Convention" slogan).   As for Mr. Shimanski's inclusion as a "Founder," he was never in the infamous hotel room.    He was at the CONVENTION, but the conversation the night before he was not present at.  That conversation and the decision made within it is what has always been referred to as the convention's founding.  To quote the original No Brand Con history page ( http://web.archive.org/web/20030206201312/www.nobrandcon.com/history.htm ):


 * The night before the convention, where Kevin, Trae, Terence, and Topher were sitting in a very small room at an Excel Inn. The four of them decided, once and for all, that they would create a convention, they jokingly named "NoBrandCon".


 * This is the first time I've ever seen someone express that he was a founder, and historically all official materials have only referred to you, myself, Topher and Kevin as such (including the versions we put out prior to your leaving the convention -- and you never protested then). When the decision was made, we didn't even KNOW Mr. Shimanski was present at the convention.  Traegorn (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd still argue that 'founder' is a nebulous definition if you're looking at it objectively, although upon reflection, he wasn't in the room at the time.


 * "(including the versions we put out prior to your leaving the convention -- and you never protested then)."


 * Frankly, at the time, I wasn't really concerned with providing an accurate history of the con. Nor were most people, which is why there have been battles over who was president and when in the early days.  Hell, we were lucky if anyone showed up at all, more or less held a position.  I'll admit, in the post above I was creating a bit of a tempest in a teacup.  I got pretty wound up in some of the forum drama.  My apologies.  aremisasling (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)