Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of attendance figures at anime conventions (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. This AfD is obnviously tainted (again) and there are quite a few "itsuseful" Keep votes, but there are good-faith ones too and judging from the last comment the basic source is generally reliable. I'd suggest waiting for the discussions at SPI and RSN to conclude, and then re-running this AfD again. Black Kite (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

List of attendance figures at anime conventions
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The last AFD's result was manipulated by User:Misconceptions2 per some rather extensive sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, or both, as outlined at Sockpuppet investigations/Misconceptions2. As such, it cannot be considered a proper discussion or consensus as to the validity of this article, so I'm reopening the debate. First let me preface this by the fact that Misconceptions2 has been found guilty of either sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting in the past, as found at Sockpuppet investigations/Misconceptions2/Archive, so any "keep" votes in this debate should be checked against the users suspected on Sockpuppet investigations/Misconceptions2 to make sure it does not happen again in this debate.

That said, I'll start by noting the redundacy of this list. Sales figures for conventions already appear, or should, on the individual articles on anime conventions, so having a list display this information again is redundant. Any of the conventions on this list that do not currently have articles may not be notable enough for inclusion, and this list shouldn't showcase non-notable topics that aren't even listed at List of anime conventions.

Next the sourcing, which is the primary reason why I'm renominating this article. This article almost entirely relies on content found at Animecons.com, which fails as a reliable source as it is user-edited. For instance, I clicked on the information listed at Ohyayocon 2008, which lists an attendance of 7,000. As you can see at the bottom of that page, there is an "Update Information for Ohayocon 2008" link, so the attendance figures are not reliable on that website. So at the very least, every single entry that references that website would have to be removed, which I believe would remove almost all the content from this article.  十  八  00:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and speedy close. bad faith nomination. Dont you think its better to make judgments and conclusions after the false accusation or sock puppetry and sock puppet investigation is over? I hope you also consider apologizing for me for making these accusations once I am cleared. I have been banned in the past for sock puppetry and the 2+ years since then i have never used socks. On 04 Sep 2011 (the last time I was accused of sock puppetry) I was cleared of sock puppetry: here --Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if you didn't engage in sockpuppetry, the referencing on this article is abysmal and relies almost entirely on an unreliable source, as I evidenced above.--  十  八  00:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Invalid reason to delete, the source is reliable. this was established on talk page, all the data on AnimeCons website is verified.Encyclopedic and valid list. There are already several articles like it as mentioned by m2 see here: List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues. If prices were to be brought back then it would also be useful as would contain revenue and cost info--Mohsinmallik (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * AnimeCon's may have a standing policy to only list information from the con's website. But that doesn't stop anyone, including you and I, to edit the information at will, which makes it unreliable. If I have to take this up at WP:RS/N, I will.--  十  八  21:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To the closing admin: Mohsinmallik had a few minor edits shortly before voting in the previous AFD debate, . Seems to fit the pattern at Sockpuppet investigations/Misconceptions2.--  十  八  21:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How disgusting, will you just accuse everyone who votes keep of being a sock puppet of mine? Anyway. Any updates made on that website by users need to be approved by the paid workers of that site and a source needs to be provided . Try updating the site yourself with data and with a source, it will say: "We are currently experiencing a rather significant backlog so it may take us some time to process your submission. Thank you for your patience."'''. They have paid people who review the information there. And all the info there that was approved was not necessarily done by users.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relax and stay civil. I also think the accounts Juhachi noted were suspicious, let the investigation handle that. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 10:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep it is Bad Faith to assume someone is a sock without a conclusion to that totally false investigation. As Misconceptions2 said the ANimeCons source is reliable because all data there needs to be verified. The article also have several references for same peice of data, so I dont see what your problem is here. I certainly am not a sock of Misconceptions2. I want this to be verified asap.--Gokul.gk7 (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To the closing admin: Gokul.gk7 has been suspected of being a sockpuppet and/or meatpuppet of Misconceptions2 at Sockpuppet investigations/Misconceptions2.--  十  八  21:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Same reasons as before: On top of having content that's listed on the wiki pages themselves, lists many cons that do not meet notability on Wikipedia, and has several primary source issues. Most of this attendance information can be better addressed on the individual pages, including more reliable sourcing. Esw01407 (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We do not delete lists because some of the data is found in wiki pages, that is just as bad as saying a list should be deleted because a category exists for it--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The animecons.com site is reliable, it has been used by animenewsnetwork and about.com . This page uses several different websites as a reference for each cell. So it is wrong to exaggerate the usage of the animecons website--Priti.shetty (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To the closing admin: Priti.shetty has been suspected of being a sockpuppet and/or meatpuppet of Misconceptions2; see evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Misconceptions2.--  十  八  21:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is getting hilarious. Your just adding everyone who voted keep to the sock puppet investigation and claiming they arem y sock. In the end you will just have a lot of people to apologise to. The admins need to do checkuser asap to put an end to your madness--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is enough convincing evidence to suggest the last three keep votes were either sockpuppets or meatpuppets per their activity and contributions. Checkuser can only clear a user of sockpuppetry if the IPs are different, but meatpuppetry is not so easy to clear. I believe the evidence speaks for itself.--  十  八  00:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Redundant to List of anime conventions and the convention articles, even if you get past those we have Template:Anime conventions in North America which navigates to the anime articles with the attendance figures listed. The sock puppets is alarming if true for this AfD as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Same reason as before. Totally useful and reliable article, well referenced. I see no reason to delete unless am missing something here. I also feel that this discussion should not be ended and a decision should not be made until that sock puppet investigation is over. I wish to be proven innocent. Juhachi can you please stop accusing everyone of being a sock until the sock investigation is over, don't you have the decency o just do that? It will just create tension--Lonelydream (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep useful article, well sourced with reliable websites, disagree with Knowledgekid87- List of anime conventions and this article are very different. -- mediator_ram -  talk2me  22:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems like a WP:ILIKEIT argument to me when the only thing you have to say is that they are "very different". The only two things that are different about the two is the attendance figures and when the convention was first held both of which can be found in the convention articles linked by another template, other than that the names of the conventions and where they are located are all in List of anime conventions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep You can not start another AFD for something three days after it closed as KEEP! A lot of people commented last time, should they all have to copy and paste over what they said here again for the same discussion?  After this ends in keep, will we have someone else nominated it for deletion three days after that?  Ridiculous.  And if you believe someone is a sockpuppet, then wait for that investigation you started to be over to prove it.  I know I'm not one and I participated in the previous AFD.  I doubt all the other guys who said keep were socks.   D r e a m Focus  06:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a completely unmanageable set of data in this site.  That's the biggest problem with that table.  There are literally hundreds of anime conventions all around, and it is doubtful that anyone will be able to keep up with it.  If this article ends up being kept, then it should be subject to another deletion discussion in the future, IF blank data ends up dominating the table. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 07:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I promise I will keep up with it. If I do not you can nominate it in the Afd process again as you stated--Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Trainwreck ahead article near only built around a single source which reliability is questioned. The article in itself is clueless of where it's heading : what are the criterion for including in the list a convention or not ? Is there any reason to take the even years attendance instead of the odd ones ? The article also strongly biased toward north America : Did you know that two of the biggest conventions around the world are missing in the list, one with an attendance around 590 000 and the other reached 230 000 this year. Concerning the afd discussion smells strongly of ownership, arguments like "it's useful" or "i like it". --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please improve the list and feel free to add other conventions to it. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No thanks. I'm a now wikipedia Kibitzer who just like to watch and make comments from times to times. Besides out of cowardice, i refuse to join to any potential trainwreck. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep the afd argument revolves around the animecons website which is a reliable source. This article shouldn't be deleted at all. The references are satisfactory--Bmshafiul (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * KeepWhy has this been nominated again just after 3 days. This article should be kept. And I am not Misconception, your claims against me are baseless. Many others voted in last afd, should we all just copy and paste those peoples reasoning to keep this article?--Acmel48 (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Animecons.com the article's only source has it's status in question: Reliable sources/Noticeboard - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Animecons is reliable and while the discussion continues at the noticeboard, I find that citation in Cinema Anime and other academica are adequate to valid this editorially controlled database of attendance records to be a reliable source that serves as a historical marker when conventions themselves are unlikely to keep their own records forever. The citation of Animecons merely makes referencing such material easier than tracking down archived histories of the individual cons. While based upon one source, a concerted effort to expand to the original convention materials could replace the easier found citations if needed as Animecon's mirrors the official data provided by the conventions themselves. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - I RUN AnimeCons.com, which appears to be the primary source for the numbers here. The numbers we report are taken from either the convention planners themselves or published by the convention's web site or press releases.  They're as reliable numbers for convention attendance as you will ever get.  We DO NOT accept numbers from random users (without a verifiable source) or from Wikipedia (unless that points to a reliable source directly connected with the convention).  ...so although the data on AnimeCons.com SHOULD be considered reliable, I really don't see the point of this page.  I mean, if people REALLY want this sort of list, I could make a page on the site.  Wikipedia is NOT a place for this.  --PatrickD (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2013 (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.