Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CoastCon


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 14:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

CoastCon

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The non-profit organization that hosts Mississippi's science fiction and fantasy Convention. Very spammy article with no evidence of notability. &mdash; RHaworth 14:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC) &mdash; RHaworth  14:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No third-party coverage of any significance. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 15:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Counterargument. I disagree with the decision to delete the page Coastcon. What is considered "significant third-party coverage?" I ask because the CoastCon page is based off of the Mobicon page, also a science-fiction/fantasy convention. What coverage did they achieve that was of note? CoastCon is a recognized annual event in south Mississippi and has been covered by local news outlets every year. You say that the article is "spammy," and yet the style is very similar to the aforementioned Mobicon. If you can offer valid reason that CoastCon does not deserve the same notice, I will acquiesce. &mdash; Whtknt (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh. The fact that Mobicon is a redlink does not really help your case. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the link should be MOBICON. Don't know why they capitalized it. &mdash; Whtknt (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that we also now have supporting links to media coverage. &mdash; Whtknt (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So, does that give us any more credibility. Can we move past this, now? &mdash; Whtknt (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we can't. We are a long way from proving this notable. Have patience and let the discussion take its course. --MelanieN (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 07:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I'm torn on this one. The convention gets a ton of coverage in local Biloxi media - but only in local Biloxi media. I'm inclined to keep it despite the absence of any wider notability. --MelanieN (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete of local interest only, and attendence figure is extremely low (and unsourced too!). Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be a substantial convention with reasonable coverage in both SF and mainstream media. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:15, 4 June 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.