Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mecon (science fiction convention)


 * 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. The "keep" arguments are mostly based on the idea that it should be possible to prove the notability of this event. The "delete" arguments point out that despite that feeling that apparently isn't the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Mecon (science fiction convention)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable convention. There is nothing in the article that establishes why this convention is important or what makes it stands out from all the others. Wikipedia is not a Directory.  « l | Promethean ™ | l »   (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do.  « l | Promethean ™ | l »   (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember Civility, please. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep as nominator is mass-nominating a long list of science fiction conventions with the same cookie-cutter rationale, not grounded in facts or policy, without regard to content or sourcing (plus List of science fiction conventions), apparently as a result of this discussion. Notability is not a competition to "stand out from all the others". With 13 articles nominated for deletion in 19 minutes, I'd like to assume in good faith that the nominator thoroughly investigated each article, searched for sources, and worked to improve the article, as per WP:BEFORE, but at less than 2 minutes per article nominated I do have to question how thorough any research might have been. It appears the nominator is making a WP:POINT. - Dravecky (talk) 11:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That may very well be a good reason to close some of the nominators AfDs, if they were in bad faith. This one, however, has at least one other !voter who feels it should be deleted, and therefore it's still a valid discussion. You're still more than welcome to !vote keep, of course, but your comment at this point is no longer a valid !vote since it doesn't address why this article should be kept.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I dispute the invalidity of my rationale above but, in the interest of clarity, Keep as Notability is not a competition to "stand out from all the others" and MeCon was host to Unicon 22, one of an international series of university-based science fiction conventions. Sourcing does need to be improved but my access to offline sources in Belfast, Northern Ireland, is constrained. (Also, after this AfD closes, the file needs to be moved from Mecon to MeCon, the proper capitalization.) - Dravecky (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  —Dravecky (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: no sources (present or evident via Google News), or other indication of notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have since expanded and improved this article, including some limited sourcing. - Dravecky (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep They get notable guest year after year to go there. We don't have a guideline specifically for conventions yet, but probably should.  And science fiction conventions aren't covered in mainstream media, just like many bestselling science fiction novels aren't reviewed.  Because the media is bias against nerds, doesn't mean we should start hating as well.   D r e a m Focus  16:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. They could get the pope to come visit, but it wouldn't transfer any of his notability (although that would probably get coverage).


 * Delete Fails the GNG, so reliable and independent significant coverage to show notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The essay you link to isn't a policy or even a suggested guideline, its just an essay. And its not even relevant in this case.  Hopefully everyone can see the difference between a famous person's family member getting an article just because their brother is famous, and an event being notable because notable people in their industry are there.  Having Stephen Hawking speak at a convention for world famous physicists would prove it was notable, just as having all the creators of notable webcomics come together for a convention of webcomics makes the event notable.  Year after year, they have a notable person hosting, and notable people attending.    D r e a m Focus  11:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As a conrunner (arranger of events like these) I'd have to say that you don't really have to do much to get more or less notable writers to turn up, though. They don't necessarily have to feel that it'll be worth their time from a professional perspective: you can get pretty far by simply convincing them that they'll have a good time, a sort of free vacation. (This, of course, doesn't go for every writer. But for enough that "hey, notable persons are attending" isn't a good argument.) /Julle (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, despite the fact that some of my most favorite authors have been guest of honor there (James White, Peter Hamilton). However, as has been pointed out, notability is not inherited. If this meeting is (was, it seems moribund) so important, then why are there no sources? (Those currently in the article are indeed "very limited"). Are there not even articles in local newspapers covering this event? There are SF sources that are WP:RS (Locus, for instance). Didn't they ever report on this event? It is not true that mainstream media will ignore this kind of events, although their reporting sometimes is more like "look what those nerdy weirdo's have come up with again"... But that is still coverage and even that is missing here. --Crusio (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep As my latest edits show, Locus mentioned it at least in events listings. I would be surprised if there wasn't any mainstream media coverage - despite being student-run, MeCon was the main (only?) Northern Irish science fiction convention during its existence - but it is likely to have been local to Northern Ireland. PWilkinson (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Surprising it may be, but it looks like there isn't.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Dravecky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 16:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dravecky improvements. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note Alright, basically the issue here is whether this convention meets the WP:GNG, since there is no form of inherent notability given to science fiction conventions, nor is there inherited notability from famous people attending something (there are god knows how many charity functions, conventions, and events that can get a notable keynote speaker but are still utterly non-notable. So basically it comes down to the sources here, including the ones which have been added by Dravecky. I'll try to go through them one by one.


 * 1 and 2 are simply listings of the convention in a list of other conventions, which obviously does not qualify as significant coverage.
 * 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are also just directory listings. They provide no depth of coverage, and also don't confer notability.
 * Source 5, [|a book that can be seen here], has one mention, saying " Harry Harrison is Guest of Honout (sic) at Mecon, in Belfast," and nothing more. No significant coverage here either.
 * Source 9 is also a listing.

None of these show the notability of the subject, even at the most basic level allowed by the GNG. While I do believe all of the keep !votes came in good faith, none of them are actually acceptable keep arguments. I'm not trying to sound like I'm dismissing the views of others, but the standard this is being held to is not very high, and this clearly does not meet it, and therefore can't be kept. Thank you.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:39, 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.