Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capricon


 * 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) Sam Sailor Talk! 00:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Capricon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Haven't found anything that suggests that this is a notable convention. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  18:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The convention has been operating for over thirty years, with multiple guests each year. The convention is a volunteer-ran organisation, and is the premier volunteer ran science-fiction literary convention in Chicago. The history, combined with average yearly "warm-body" attendance between 970-1120 each year and a notable list of guests, I would suggest that this convention's page should remain published and publicly viewable. As a further discussion point, do we - as a community of editors - have a list of standards to comprise "notable"? Lady Nhytefall (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Lady_Nhytefall
 * Yes, there is the general notability guideline, plus other useful, relevant links and information on that page as well. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

--

Capricon is currently in its 36th year and is the longest running 4 day sci-fi convention in the Chicago area. - marindad

Capricon is the second longest running convention in the greater Chicago area. The event to be held in Feb. 2016 will be the 36th annual convention. Capricon is the only four day convention in the Chicago area, and has an annual membership of approximately 1000 people. A sampling of notable past guests of honor at the convention include: Authors: Mike Resnick, Cory Doctorow, John Scalzi, Lois McMaster Bujold, Terry Pratchett, Larry Niven and Frederick Pohl Artists: John Picacio, Kaja Foglio, Les McClaine and Don Maitz Others: Tom Smith, Javier Grillo-Marxuach, Dr. Demento and Steve Hockensmith --pheltzer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheltzer (talk • contribs) 22:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , It being the longest running 4-day convention is not very impressive if it is the only 4-day one. Membership and notable guest on their own is not enough to qualify for an article. Can you show that this convention meets the general notability guideline? Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe using the guidelines from WP:ORGDEPTH, the following articles can be used to support the notability guidelines: Amazing Stories Magazine article, WGN tv coverage of the Capricon 34, Web Series "The Con Men", FunctionalNerds Podcast about Capricon 35, Chicago Now Capricon Recap, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheltzer (talk • contribs) 01:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Amazing Stories source is not independent, writer was asked to participate in a panel there, he accepted it and wrote about the experience. WGNTV isn't signifiant coverage, basically a notice that the convention is going on. Ten Wing Media, maker of "The Con Men", doesn't seem very well-known, established, or popular (many of their "Con Men" videos struggle to get even a thousand views). Looks like it is made up of only three people. Not that any one of these disqualifies it (not sure if any do), it's just that with all the factors added together I don't think it could be used to establish notability. Podcast looks like an interview with someone at Capricon, not specifically about Capricon, I also don't think a "Functional Nerds" podcast can be used to establish notability. Chicago Now is a user generated blog style site, not a reliable source. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per WP:BARE - it's big enough. Bearian (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see attendance size mentioned in that essay if that's what you meant. And ~1000 attendance events aren't that rare. Highschool/college level sporting events, opening of large, seasonal parks/facilities, and even some peoples' birthday parties could regularly get 1000+ attendance, yet most aren't considered notable here. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, although I think I do see why the nominator believes otherwise. The difficulty that I have in deleting this article is that the List of science fiction conventions points us to a whole lot of conventions, most of them at sub-national (i.e., regional or local) levels.  Sure, I know that "other stuff exists" is not a compelling argument, but what we have here is so much other stuff of the same nature that it begins to look like a consensus to have these sorts of articles.  And this particular convention has been around for a long time, with a guest list that includes top-shelf authors in the genre (meaning that my opinion might have been different if this were one of the articles about small local conventions).  Rainbow unicorn, how would you feel if the introduction was pared down to remove the fluff and the article was re-classed as a "list" article?  I don't mind during the grunt work on that, if there is a consensus that this is the way to go.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that if you and others believe it should be kept. This one may be towards the side of being notable but there are some smaller and/or not as old ones on that list that are more likely not. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with your take on some of the other conventions on the list. You and I would probably find ourselves on the same side of the fence for some of the small, local ones.  As for the matter at hand -- I'll get to work on cleaning up the instant article, but I'll probably not have anything done until tomorrow.  If you like the way it looks as a list article, perhaps the nomination can be withdrawn at that point.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Update. The conversion to 'list' format has been completed.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure basically as Books and browser found some links but nothing obviously better so draft & userfy if needed and it's also worth noting the original author was a "capriconchair". Notifying past users, , and .  (long time no see ), are you familiar with this?  SwisterTwister   talk  07:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as subject crosses verifiability and notability thresholds per WP:GNG. Notability is not a competition and "rarity" is not a factor. - Dravecky (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, but about as weak a keep as one can give. Seems to barely meet WP:GNG, primarily because of tenure. It is a bit "listy," though, and verifiable sources are pretty thin. I don't have really strong feelings one way or another about this one, frankly. Realkyhick (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Capricon has many features which set it apart from other conventions which can, and should, be included in the article, ranging from its inclusion of a series of hoax panels (which have engendered some controversy) its historical relationship to Windycon.  They just need to be added to the entry with appropriate sourcing. Shsilver (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. A search on Google Books shows little snippets mentioning the convention, like how a Japanese programming track drew in as many viewers as the American programming track in 1985.  That's the kind of stuff that's really needed here to make an article, but there just isn't a lot of that kind of independent coverage available.  I am generally seeing a lot of bare mentions of the convention, where it takes places, and that it deals with science fiction.  I agree with  that a list article is a better format given the circumstances. I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:54, 12 November 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.