Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anime Conji


 * 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 No consensus. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick t c s 04:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Anime Conji

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Most of the current sources used in this article really do not establish Anime Conji's notability. After researching, here is what I could find towards Anime Conji's notability. I am bringing this article to AFD, as I am not sure even with the additional sources, this is notable enough. I could not find any extensive TV or Newspaper coverage, or aside from Anime News Network any extensive anime industry coverage. Esw01407 (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) ANN: Solve the Mystery of Danganronpa at Anime Conji - This is the only source that might make the convention notable from the current list.
 * 1) The San Diego Union-Tribune: Anime lovers only - Anime Conji celebrates Japanese animation and manga - Reads like a press release.
 * 2) Cinefantastique Online: Anime Conji 2011: It’s back, and this time it’s inter- and intra-personal - Possibly establishes notability.
 * 3) ANN - Anime Expo 2012 - The Future of Anime Expo panel - Briefly talks about Conji after the Anime Expo takeover.
 * 4) Los Angeles Magazine: Get Your Con on This Weekend - Mentions convention, talks about events being held.


 * Keep - This convention features several notable guests every year. That alone could make this convention notable. FiendYT (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced by that argument, guests will turn up if you pay their fare, room and perhaps other costs and will be looking to increase their exposure and market themselves at the cons expense. For example the first Hyper Japan had a generic voice acting idol group turn up but it was purely a business trip for them - they used the chance to do a photoshoot in London and and spread the word about their show. Guests alone won't make a con notable unless they attract the very cream of the crop, and even then it's a marketing exercise and question of funds rather than the importance of the con itself. The biggest cons will attract bigger guests but again, big show means big marketing exposure. The statement is also meaningless without a guest list and the guests mentioned in the articles linked are not big enough to make a difference. Additionally as the creator of the page and person claiming the guests are notable, you should be providing examples. SephyTheThird (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This is by SPJA who produces Anime Expo. Here's an LA Weekly article: . The Danganronpa event was also covered by Game Informer  Here's a Holtville newspaper article about how the event draws in about 3,000 people.  The greater question is at what size an anime convention in the US should be before it is considered notable, now that there are multiple ones in the country? AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think size matters, notability is notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep With Angus's finding of additional sources, one of them is a passing mention but there is enough overall coverage for this one to just squeak by. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Request As the debate is not moving forward, I have gone ahead and rewrote the article with the sources available. I would like this AFD closed with the note of "no consensus". Esw01407 (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.