Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MarsCon (Bloomington, Minnesota)


 * 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 KEEP. postdlf (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

MarsCon (Bloomington, Minnesota)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No significant coverage of these events. Bongo  matic  08:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep GNews shows multiple RS (though paywalled) hits. Jclemens (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Coverage appears to be excessively local (per WP:GEOSCOPE) and not obviously significant coverage anyway. Bongo  matic  22:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Local doesn equal non-notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep as I have overhauled the Williamsburg article and referenced in-depth coverage in reliable sources, including the regional Hampton Roads magazine and the local Williamsburg Yorktown Daily newspaper. It now crosses both the verifiability and notability thresholds. - 10:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'd say keep to both, but why are two different articles listed via one deletion thread? I'm pretty sure that's not how this is supposed to be done when both articles are about different topics (in this case, different but similarly named conventions). Both events seem to have significant external coverage, and more could probably be found OFF of the internet as well - these events have been around for quite a while. This deletion debate needs to be closed, and two new debates opened (unless consensus for keeping both is already found, at which point that would be redundant). Kopf1988 (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2011 (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.
 * Keep - I'd say keep to both, but why are two different articles listed via one deletion thread? I'm pretty sure that's not how this is supposed to be done when both articles are about different topics (in this case, different but similarly named conventions). Both events seem to have significant external coverage, and more could probably be found OFF of the internet as well - these events have been around for quite a while. This deletion debate needs to be closed, and two new debates opened (unless consensus for keeping both is already found, at which point that would be redundant). Kopf1988 (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2011 (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.