Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BabelCon


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

BabelCon

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

After attempts to cite references and local news links - non-signed in editors continue to feel "less is more" and continue to request citation and question notability. I personally do care one way or another - I simple saw a page about an event I was semi-fimilar with and tried to help --BRYankee (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * — BRYankee (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jclemens (talk)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Google News Archive appears to have plenty of independent RS coverage. Definitely needs to be added to the article, though. Jclemens (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jclemens. Also, please note that the article history here indicates that sources have been deleted repeatedly by IP editors. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Eeek, that looks very fishy. I've restored the deleted material and semi-protected the article for a week.  By all means, trim irrelevant material and add good sources, but not anonymously remove 2/3rds of the content without explanation immediately prior to AfD. Jclemens (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Not largest minor convention, and it may yet fail, but that's no reason to push it into deletion. htom (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as event meets both verifiability and notability thresholds through sustained coverage in reliable third-party sources. (Of which, for the record, I have added several more while expanding the article today.) Also, notability is not temporary so any future failure of this or any other notable convention is not a valid reason for deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2010 (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.