Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anime Midwest


 * 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   delete. Secret account 20:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Anime Midwest

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable event. The only sources that cover it in detail are not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy. I couldn't find anything to show that this is notable enough for its own article. The stuff on the article doesn't really show notability either. The ANN articles read more like re-printing of press releases and AnimeCons.com is just a database of convention dates and info. It's sort of like the IMDb of anime conventions, in other words. The Patch article looks to be just a collection of photos. While Chicago Now is run through the Tribune, I don't think that it really counts as a RS since it looks to be the type of place where almost anyone could have a blog. Even if we were to count it, that article is just a notification of an upcoming event, not actual coverage. The Chicago Tribune link is just a notification as well- not something that could give notability. Given its size, I'm actually a little surprised at the lack of coverage. While it's nowhere near as big as AX (few are), it's still big enough to where I'd have thought that at least a few local papers would've given it some coverage, so if anyone can find anything to show this merits a keep I'm open for persuasion. I have no issue with anyone userfying this to work on for a while until the point comes when it does merit an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Adding that this wouldn't be a bad idea if someone wants to userfy it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  05:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  05:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  05:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: For full disclosure, I recently did serious revision work on this article, and removed many sources that do not meet reliable and independent. Others might wish to investigate sources in older versions of the article, but most were fan blogs and other fan publications of those varieties. Esw01407 (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Being a fan publication does not necessarily disqualify a source as being reliable if it is independently (not self) published, including Kotaku, Escapist Magazine, and ScrewAttack. ANN reported very briefly on the event for having a Japanese guest. There's only a brief mention in the Daily Herald, but it helps show multiple sources. Patch and ChicagoNow articles are more in-depth coverage. ChicagoNow is overseen by Chicago Tribune editors. Kopf1988 (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment a number of the other members of Template:Anime_conventions_in_North_America are tagged for notability and/or appear borderline to me. Is there some suitable merge and redirect target? Stuartyeates (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There isn't as List of anime conventions wouldn't include the article after it's deleted. Many also have sourcing issues similar to this article, but due to paywalls and various other reasons WP:Goodfaith, or lack of support/apathy at AFD has caused them to be no consensus or kept. Also several just aren't updated. Esw01407 (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like its time to do another run through like I did with the Defunct and on-hiatus conventions: Talk:List of anime conventions most of the time the article was deleted but some looked okay while others just needed a bit more sourcing. Rather than mass delete articles I will go through the ones we have and continue this discussion on the article's talkpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can only find routine mentions in papers on Highbeam as well; no major independent coverage. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Im not so sure this is a clear case of non-notability, the event has coverage in a-lot of sources, plus I am finding more., , . - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two of those are press releases and the last doesn't have in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  03:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The big problem with the Yahoo source is that it's ultimately a blog. Yahoo Voices is essentially Yahoo Blogs when you get down to it because rather than it being written by an official Yahoo news staff member, these are articles written by anyone with a log-in. Pay very close attention to the line "Share your voice on Yahoo! websites. Start Here." right under the author's name. The other two sources you gave aren't usable as RS either. Geek Calendar essentially serves the same purpose as AnimeCons.com in that it just reports upcoming conventions and isn't actually coverage of the event in RS. The other site, Convention Scene, is also a press release but even if it wasn't, it wouldn't be the type of site that would be usable as a RS. That said, I'll look through the sources on the article. Offhand not many of them look to be usable in the slightest. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a rundown of the sources: Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Despite it being run through ANN, this is a press release. ANN will pretty much run a PR for any convention that sends one to them. Even if they didn't, a PR is still considered a primary source and regardless of where it's posted, a PR is still a PR.
 * 2) This is one of ScrewAttack's blogs and isn't written by a staff member. You can tell when you go to this link you can clearly see "blog post" under his articles. That means that this isn't really usable as a RS any more than it'd be if I were to open a blog there and write up a review for the con.
 * 3) This isn't really usable as a RS either. This is pretty much the type of site where anyone can contribute to. If the mods see something they like, they move it up to the main page, but we have no way of knowing what that screening process is, how discerning they are, or what the qualifications of the mods are.
 * 4) Non-notable blog-type site. Plus this looks to be a PR or taken predominantly from one.
 * 5) Another blog-type site. Being a judge at a con and having a popular blog doesn't automatically mean that the person would be considered a RS.
 * 6) Non-notable blog. Even if it wasn't, this is so brief that it wouldn't be seen as being in-depth.
 * 7) Primary source.
 * 8) Now while the Daily Herald would be usable as a RS, this particular article is just a notification of various events. It's not an in-depth source. It's not even really an article about the con at all, and as such can't show notability.
 * 9) Non-notable blog.
 * 10) Now while I consider Kotaku a RS, this is a pretty brief article. It does say that the con had a notable person attend, but association with notable persons doesn't give notability to the con. Even if I would consider this a usable source and not a brief, trivial one, this isn't enough to keep an article on and it's really the only half usable one we've had so far.
 * 11) This pretty much has the same issues as the Kotaku source. It's something I could consider to be reliable, but isn't in-depth enough to really count. Even if you would consider this and Kotaku to be a RS, two sources reporting on the same thing isn't enough to keep an article for an entire con.
 * 12) An ANN post based predominantly on a PR. I've tried using these before in the past and had people tell me these were unusable.
 * 13) Press release.
 * 14) Press release.
 * 15) Con database, unusable for the purposes of notability. This and AnimeCons.com seem to be the equivalent of IMDb for conventions. Being in such databases isn't a feat in and of itself as these databases will list any con that submits their info.
 * 16) Con database.
 * 17) Con database entry.
 * 18) Press release.
 * 19) Con database entry.
 * 20) Press release on a non-notable blog.
 * 21) Con database.
 * 22) Press release.
 * 23) Con database.
 * 24) Con database.
 * 25) Another dubious blog, the same as the one listed above as a judge. Same issues as a RS apply.


 * Delete per Tokyogirl79's always-excellent analysis. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Reliable sources are just not there right now. I support userfying of an copy of the article if it ends up being deleted, as the article will be back sooner then later if the conventions growth is true. Esw01407 (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak delete and move to userspace, without prejudice against future recreation - Now this is probably going to be a rare case of systemic bias on North American articles, because in this case I would support deletion of the article even though, despite the fact the fact that this is one of the largest anime conventions in the States and we do have articles on many of the other ones. I honestly want this article to be kept, if only for the con's size. But here's the thing: despite the fact that the con is quite prominent, there's a surprising lack of coverage for it in reliable sources. Sure there are mentions here and there in some newspapers, but they're either press releases, announcements, or otherwise non-significant coverage. For now, I would suggest that someone work on the article in their userspace and at least try to find any more sources, or wait for notability to be established in the future. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with this being userfied. I'll add that to my vote. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:25, 25 June 2013 (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.