Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anime South


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 11:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Anime South

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No assertion or indication of notability, only the company's own information cited as a source. Significant WP:COI issues (being edited to a good extent by User:Animesouth, who was found to be using socks during disagreements regarding inserting links to the article elsewhere). No indication why this would pass WP:CORP, WP:ORG, or WP:N overall. Seraphimblade 01:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions.   -- Farix (Talk) 02:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. MER-C 02:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-Notable, plus it's a commercial event being pushed by the owner. --TommyOliver 03:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable. Terence Ong 04:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, WP:COI, WP:AUTO, and my comments here. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. :: Colin Keigher ( Talk ) 15:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Obvious bad faith nomination due to disagreement on List of anime conventions RfC. Retaliatory recommendation evident by this quote:  "Here's an idea, let's AfD Anime South...." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.63.22.57 (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC).  — 68.63.22.57 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I just did a search of that talk page. First, those words don't appear in the page.  Second, the debate appears to have been going on for some time.  Please assume good faith, here, as hard as it may be, and remember that this must adhere to the standards that all other Wikipedia articles are held to. --Dennisthe2 21:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to look again. Ned Scott made that comment, which started this AfD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.63.22.57 (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the pointer. Read farther into it, though, and while Ned's comments were rather acerbic, no doubt, my statement still stands - as does my !vote.  Sorry, man. --Dennisthe2 00:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why that would be considered bad faith considering it's a logical path of reasoning. We became aware that the article itself should be deleted using the same rational as why it shouldn't be in the list article. It's that simple. -- Ned Scott 02:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to note that this AFD was started by a neutral editor and not by one of the parties involved in the dispute. Even if the topic did come up in the RfC, this nomination is not in bad faith. --Farix (Talk) 01:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not a neutral editor. Seraphimblade was specifically thanked for getting involved with Animesouth before this AfD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.63.22.57 (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment First, Marc, stop hiding behind anonymous IPs. Second, the only other thing Seraphimblade did was revert your obvious sockpuppets. He doesn't have a dog in this fight. --Farix (Talk) 02:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Honestly, I couldn't care less, but as has been shown in the link above, the AfD is clearly a bad faith nomination. Maybe the article should be cleaned up, maybe it should be deleted. But not like this. Shrumster 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It should be noted though, that User:Animesouth has been working on the article itself and removing tags and the like. WP:COI? Shrumster 20:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Per the link to the List of Anime Conventions talk page, deletion has been debated thereon.  This is not a bad faith nomination, the convention is simply not (yet) notable per criteria.  --Dennisthe2 21:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's somewhat hypocritical to claim this is a bad faith nomination based on List of anime conventions RfC... the creator and sole proponent (minus his socks) of the Anime South article has tried to nominate list of anime conventions as an AfD simply because his small convention did not meet the criteria. Also, several of them are joining wikipedia just to "vote" for this article. --TommyOliver 23:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've put the not a ballot tag on just in case --Farix (Talk) 01:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm ambivalent in general about individual articles for individual conventions and issues surrounding the RfC that led to this. However, looking at a few articles on List of anime conventions, this particular article has citations that are about average for its type. It cites AnimeCons.com and, yes, the convention's own webpage. Anime Weekend Atlanta, a far more notable convention in my estimation, doesn't even go that far. As for notability... AnimeSouth probably fails the test. But I think a lot of other convention articles would also fall under the axe.--Monocrat 02:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, I guess. If it's notable, it doesn't tell me why. --Masamage 04:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete After repeated requests to add some actual content (with references) to the page before removing the "stub" tag, neither User:Animesouth (nor anyone else) has done so. Therefore one must assume that there is nothing else that can be said about this convention.  Surely someone must have posted an independent third-party con report that could be cited as reference.  If there were detailed information on it, I might be able to support keeping it...but seeing as how nobody has anything to add -- no history, no details on past events, etc. -- I don't see anything in the article that makes this any more notable than the next convention.  (If there IS a reason this convention is notable, why isn't it here?!)  Additionally and unfortunately, the repeated vandalism by User:Animesouth has made maintenance on this article far more troublesome than it should be. --PatrickD 22:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of any sources other than primary sources. - Chardish 08:23, 2 February 2007 (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.