Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Conference


 * 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. What the organizers can rent, etc. are not valid reasons for keeping, but whether coverage is local matters not if they meet the criteria of significant secondary sources that can be presumed reliable. Unless the local papers can be refuted, it meets GNG. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

2012 Conference

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This appears to fail our notability guidelines. A little coverage in the LA Times and CityBeat isn't enough. dougweller (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I only got 4 google news archive hits for the event.  It seems below peoples' radar.  Cazort (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Please clearify "enough covereage" and its relation to Notability.  Under General Noteability, there are 5 main criteria - "Enough Coverage" is not the same as "Significant Coverage", which requires that the coverage be explicit in the discussion of the event.  This is clearly the case here.  Notibility requirements ask for third party coverage which is evident in both LA Times and Citybeat.  Stating that it is not enough seems a subjective argument.  The conference had high attendance indicating that it was relevant, regardless of personal beliefs - e.g. I don't believe in this stuff, but understand that it has a large following as evident by fanbase on sites such as 2012 News, Geddon Gear, and2012 Predictions.  With the History Channel running doomsday content regularly - armageddon miniseries, I think this is valid.  KurtVan (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Fanbases and attendance are irrelevant. And certainly that fact that doomsday content exists anywhere is irrelevant (as is quite a bit of the article in fact). The issue is whether a couple of short newspaper articles are sufficient to establish notability of this conference. I'm arguing no, that you'd need more than that. Show us a NYTimes article and I'll agree it's notable. dougweller (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The LA Times is the second largest metropolitan newspaper. I am curious why NYTimes (which is the largest metropolitan newspaper) qualifies, but the LA times is not good enough?     —Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtVan (talk • contribs) 18:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * CommentBecause it is anything but local to the conference. Coverage in New York would imply some sort of notability probably. dougweller (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep notable enough  Chzz  ►  16:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There is a Fox TV piece right on the site's homepage and they rented out the Fort Mason center in San Francisco, so they at least have enough money and plans to pull that off. Sure it is a bit 'far out', but part of wiki's value is to cover that type of stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtyoga (talk • contribs) 13:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I fully agree with Jtyoga and couldn't say it better Shawnpoo (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Just to make it clear once again, all the coverage is local, including the tv coverage. KurtVan, Jtyoga, no offence, but you've only been around less than a month and it takes a while to understand how Wikipedia works. It took me a lot longer than a few months. :-) dougweller (talk) 06:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, Cazort - I don't know if a google search is sound evidence for either inclusion or exclusion as stated in wiki's Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions section entitled Google Test.KurtVan (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for the information Dougweller. However, I am having trouble understanding why Local coverage does not qualify as a valid source. A newspaper like Holland Sentinel is a local newspaper that does not have coverage outside its locality, but is a valid Wikipedia entry. After reading through both Notability and Reliable sources, I fail to see where your argument about local coverage not qualifying as a secondary source is valid. Implying that you are right and others are wrong because you have had more experience in Wikipedia does not seem like a valid (or cordial) argument either. And I have been around a lot longer than a month - just because I didn't exist as a user on wikipedia, doesn't mean that last month was my very first encounter with the concept of an encyclopedia.


 * 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.