Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Con of the North (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Feel free to renomination. Missvain (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Con of the North
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I couldn't verify that this meets notability. Last AfD 6 years ago, with no consensus. Has been tagged for notability for over 7 years. Hopefully, we can now get some resolution. Boleyn (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "(T)agged for notability for over 7 years" isn't exactly accurate. About six and a half years ago it was deleted (replaced with a redirect).  Someone undeleted it a couple weeks ago for whatever reason, but didn't do anything to the article.  I'm only here because I got an email from Wikipedia about this deletion discussion.
 * I gave up back then as I couldn't make any sense out of what the Wikipedia folks want; comparing the Con of the North article at the time to similar game convention articles at the time that weren't marked with notability issues and put up for deletion gave no guidance.
 * My recommendation would be to Keep for now and let a new era of interested editors take a crack at it. It's been six years, after all. Parody (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for making a clearer statement than I did,. I brought it to AfD because of the revertion, but a redirect to List_of_gaming_conventions is a reasonable alternative to deletion, in my opinion. In terms of its notability, looking at what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS often isn't useful, but please look at WP:NOTABILITY. Do you think it meets the guidelines as notable, and if so, are you able to verify it? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Re: Redirecting: It's not in that list as that list specifically requires an article. Without an entry in the list a redirect is inappropriate.  (In fact, when someone added the article back to the list after the recent undeletion someone else immediately removed the entry citing "write the article first".)
 * Re: Notability: I think it's just as notable as other game conventions that have not had their Wikipedia articles deleted. Whether that means notability in this niche needs better consideration or more game convention articles need deletion isn't for me to decide.  Verification is difficult in either case, as many conventions don't go searching for press coverage to be proven notable in Wikipedia terms. Parody (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk  13:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk  14:11, 11 July 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.