Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DaishoCon


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 01:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

DaishoCon

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is about an apparently non-notable convention. It does have a few references, but so far every one of them is to information published by the convention itself, or by people associated with it. There are also a few blogs that talk about the convention, but there is nothing that would qualify as an independent reliable source as required by the notability guidelines Jayron32. talk . contribs 02:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note Original creator attempted a copy&paste move to Daisho Con. I have restored the original article and redirected the copy to the original. --Farix (Talk) 02:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Was previously deleted via AFD as Daisho Con. While I think the reasons in that AFD no longer apply (thus speedy G4 does not apply), I would say weak delete unless more than one reliable source is found. Kesac (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable (refs amount to nothing more than self refs) ukexpat (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete I was going to hold off from commenting since I had that spat with the article's original creator. (He took his anger out on me because I initially tagged the article for A7 speedy deletion.) However, the nominator and Kesac make good points. The article is also getting filled with original research and appear to be used by the con as an information platform. --Farix (Talk) 03:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an open community where anyone can make or adjust an entry. This entry was not created by the convention staff, and that should be kept in mind when making assumptions as to its purpose.  I see a lot of sloppy references posted as well as misinformation.  As much as I'd like to see this article kept clean until a detailed one is compiled/sourced....it likely won't happen due to the notoriety the convention has received amongst attendees.  Please be patient while post-con excitement causes a few "quick and dirty" articles to be posted.  (delete as necessary)   VicFlik (talk 06:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, the Wausau Daily Herald is not a blog or self-published, and the source would appear to meet the WP:RS criteria. However, it was the only such source I was able to locate.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC).
 * Weak Keep  I would just like to point out that the 3rd party media coverage of Daisho Con, specifically found here: does indeed satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria.   The same story is linked to by several other indipendent/reliable news sources as well i.e. Green Bay Press Gazette:  Wikipedia's inclusion criteria does not have a minimum number of coverage stories, only that they present "Significant coverage" (address the subject directly in detail, etc.) VicFlik (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC) — VicFlik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * In practice, we like to have at least two independent sources or one nationally published source. As for the Nan Desu Kan article, there are actually two independent sources listed on its talk page which haven't been incorporated into the article yet. --Farix (Talk) 12:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't bring up Nan Desu Kan. I cited No Brand Con which only has references from animecons.com.  Even on its talk page the only other mentioned references are from the campus newspaper, which were likely submitted/written by people dealing with the convention.VicFlik (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The existence of other articles with similar issues does not legitimize this article. If you believe that No Brand Con does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, then you are more then welcome to nominate it. But keep in mind that No Brand Con has already been to AFD once and was kept. And given that your only edits have been about the deletion of this convention's article, the nomination my be viewed as a bad faith nomination or disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Farix (Talk) 21:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no minimum to article quantity for inclusion criteria. You say that there is a minimum of two in practice, but it doesn't appear to be so.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitocapito (talk • contribs) 02:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Backing In another effort to give reasons for my Weak Keep stance, I think Daisho Con has notability as an organization as well. WP:CORP states that "an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes commercial and non-commercial activities including interest groups.  Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, etc."  Daisho Con is student run organization which has created the third largest convention of this type in Wisconsin (as of right now) which gives the group a fairly large amount of notability and has had a notable/demonstrable effect on the anime/manga/sci-fi/etc. culture in that area. WP:CORP  also makes particular that: "Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations."  VicFlik (talk) 07:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It appears this convention has been held exactly once, and not even a month ago. Isn't there some inclusion criteria where it has to be a repeating event?  Does a one-off get an article?76.116.247.15 (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there's not. Also, many events that have only happened once have wikipedia articles. VicFlik (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Only Anime Milwaukee, which may be a candidate for deletion too. The only other case was the New York Anime Festival. However, it received a ton of coverage from various media outlets. But even so, see my comment above about WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Farix (Talk) 21:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not referring to only anime conventions.VicFlik (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Perhaps, if they have one next year, there will be more sources but until then... L0b0t (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Again, there is nothing in the inclusion criteria that says there is a minimum number of acceptable sources. The con could run for 6 years and still have no 3rd party references, as is the case with No Brand Con (which no one has taken an issue with)  Furthermore, how long ago the con happened and the number of times it has happened are not areas of concern under Wikipedia's notability requirement.  Please stop bringing up the fact that it has only happened once. VicFlik (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * First, Wikipedia's decisions are based on a rough consensus developed by discussion. This is especially true for guidelines, such as WP:NOTE where the interpretation of significant coverage is left to the community. To argue that the exact wording of a guideline somehow trumps consensus is considered Wikilawyering and frowned upon. It is also inappropriate to respond to every "delete" comment with the same arguments. --Farix (Talk) 21:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple things regarding those arguments. First, if the community decides what is "significant coverage" then it is well worth at least pointing out that there is no minimum in the guidelines.  Second, it seems that you missed my argument that the duration of the convention and how long ago it happened are irrelevant to Wikipedia's notability standards.  Let's stick to arguing the legitimacy of the article rather than trying to patronize me on what you deem to be appropriate action. VicFlik (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2008 (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.