Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamehole Con


 * 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 Userfy..  MBisanz  talk 00:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Gamehole Con

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Insufficient independent reliable sourcing. Only one source (Badger Herald) comes close to meeting WP:IRS, and that article is, IMHO, routine event promotion news. Likely advert by con organizers/supporters. Article has been edited only by page creator (apparently the con director) and one single purpose account. PROD declined with no comment by an ip account with two edits. BusterD (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep This is the page that I put up for Gamehole Con. I am quite the noob on Wikipedia and this is my first attempt at publishing a page... so go easy on me. I understand the primary issue with the article is its notoriety. My main motivation for publishing the article is to get it on this list: List of gaming conventions. My thought was, if the list exists, then the convention should have entry. I've been doing a little reading on the AfD Discussions and I understand that non-notoriety of other articles is not a sufficient justification for an article. WP:Listcruft is a problem. Weeding out the cruft is important work. I have a great deal of respect for Wikipedia and those of you that volunteer hours/weeks/months to this project. My obvious preference would be that you vote to keep the entry and I'll work to improve it. if you vote to delete I'd ask that you provide a little constructive criticism on what makes one convention notable vs another. Citations that don't come across as marketing are not easy to come by. Based on the other pages for game conventions that I have read the primary criteria seems to be that they have been around for a while. If the community decides to delete the article, I assume it will revert to a draft. I'll continue to update it and occasionally resubmit it for publication. Eventually I'll get it over the bar. Thank you all for your time (I know, TLDR)  Hitchcock3 (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment 1) Welcome to Wikipedia. I have left a template on your talk page which should provide links to much useful information. 2) Writing an article about a subject merely because one would like the subject to appear on a list is quite putting the cart before the horse. List of gaming conventions is a page which exists to compile links to articles which already exist and subjects which meet the criteria for inclusion. The list is NOT intended to be a directory of conventions. It is not intended to advertise the listed events, though it may appear to have that impact. 3) Writing about a subject with which an editor has a personal connection (employment, marketing, ownership) is considered a conflict of interest and is strongly discouraged, especially by new and less experienced editors. 4) The most basic inclusion criteria, what we call the GNG or general notability guideline, requires pagespace be anchored with multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, directly detailing the subject. Mere mentions, such as that from Isthmus added today don't pass this test. Criteria for inclusion of events is even more restrictive. I'd encourage any new editor to thoroughly read the links I've offered in this reply. 5) It is an incorrect assumption that if this page is deleted, it reverts to draft space; it is instead excised from Wikipedia, as are all links to the page. If deleted, restoring it would be much more difficult (requiring a deletion review or a very generous closer willing to revisit the outcome of this procedure) than if it were voluntarily moved to draft space until it meets guidelines for notability and sourcing. I would be willing to withdraw this nomination if User:Hitchcock3 would be willing to return the page to draftspace (or user sandbox space) and improve it until it meets criteria for inclusion. I have nothing against Gamehole or its organizers. I'm merely defending the encyclopedia from pages unlikely to ever meet criteria for inclusion. BusterD (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  18:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete or move to draft space. Does not seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources.  I don't think that student newspapers can establish notability.  What we need are articles published by professional journalists in sources that have editorial control, such as newspapers or magazines.  I'm not too keen on the idea of its resubmission every time a blog mentions it, but I guess moving it to draft space is not too much to ask. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete and move to draft/user space I find plenty of sources on the internet but none have much reliability. It's a close call in my humble opinion. The WISC-TV in Madison published this video which counts as one local reliable source . I am willing to use the admin tools to work with Hitchcock3 - to copy/undelete the article to Draft or Userspace draft until more solid reliable sources are found if this discussion results in its deletion.  Royal broil  03:27, 22 December 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.