Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necronomicon Providence


 * 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. Arguments such as "its notable" are not considered; consensus appears to be in support of a delete without prejudice to recreation. L Faraone  16:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Necronomicon Providence

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This conference does not appear to be independently notable. This event does not appear to have made even the local news; and appears to be mentioned online only in blogs and ticket sales sites. VQuakr (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Hi. The convention is being "rebooted" after 12 years with quite a large effort from the mentioned council. Due to the fact that the con is roughly two months away, the newspaper / magazine world has not picked is up yet - events like these are mostly promoted in print only in the month before the event (July) or of the event (August).


 * Past conventions had roughly a thousand attendees, the numbers are expected to be much higher. The Eventpage on Facebook lists roughly half of the people that are attenting - at least 300 more people from Facebook alone will attend but haven't switched themselves from "invited" to "attending". The Event Page has more than 5000 likes, hence the event *is* more than just a gathering of a dozen like-minded people.


 * I have requested the rough amount of guests from the council and will provide them as soon as I have them. Please bear in mind, that this convention does not cover the vast array of topics of all the comic cons that got an entry, but they are certainly attracting more guests than gaming cons that still have an entry [].


 * Promotion already does happen via the hotels, as you can see here: Omni Hotels


 * Please also note that most of the linked guests like S.T. Joshi, Robert M. Price, Joseph S. Pulver, Caitlin R. Kiernan, Laird Barron, etc., are notable writers and scholars.


 * Here are some of the first announcements that can be found online (sadly links to Examiner and related newspapers will not be accpted, hence there's at least half a dozen links missing):
 * Providence monthly
 * Dread Central on one of the busts that will be unveiled during the Convention as part of the Lovecraft month
 * brutalashell.com
 * Innsmouth Free Press (Indie publisher)


 * General Announcements:
 * Convention Central
 * lanyrd.com
 * Eventbrite.com
 * Eventful.com
 * Allevents.in
 * New England Science Fiction and Fantasy Events
 * Wherevent.com
 * The problem is that none of the sources are really usable as RS. The bust announcement is more about the bust and is pretty much entirely a press release. Regardless of where they're posted, PR will always be seen as a primary source that cannot show notability. Notifications of the event through things such as EventBrite and other sites can't show notability either. They just show that the convention exists. Also, promotion done by the hotel hosting the event is also seen as a primary source that cannot show notability. It's in their best interest to promote the convention, after all. Now as far as the other sources go, Brutal As Hell is about the bust and not really the convention, although it is an actual article and not a PR. The Providence Online and Innsmouth FP are sort of borderline usable, though. The big issue is verifying the reliability of the source, although some will also state that these are local sources. Local sources are always sort of depreciated when it comes to establishing notability since it's usually in a town's best interest to cover something local and local papers will often cover local interest stories. If we have coverage that isn't local, that will help establish notability a little better. One thing I also want to state is that even if the con hosts notable persons, that notability is not transferred to the con. Also, attendance means nothing. A well attended convention only means it's more likely that something will get coverage in RS that aren't local. On a side note, if this is kept then it will need a pretty heavy cleaning. The current version of the article is insanely clunky and reads part PR and part website for the con. I recommend going to a format akin to Anime Expo. Sometimes in trying to list *every* guest and every panel or feature, you make the article less helpful and informative rather than more so, so be careful of this. It's usually better to just list the guests of honor and leave off the others. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: I've gone through and did a thorough cleaning of the article as a whole, so the current version is different from the original version. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. This just isn't a notable convention and trust me, I looked for sources for both its current name and its shorter name as just "Necronomicon". The problem here is that when it is mentioned, it's as a brief aside that so and so is going to attend, a listing of various conventions, or just a typical notification of an event. This hasn't really been running that long, all things considering, and it's honestly not that uncommon for conventions to run for years without any actual mainstream coverage. I've seen a yearly gaming convention that's run fairly regularly since about the early 1980s get deleted for a lack of notability, so longevity isn't always a guarantee of notability. Nor is a guest list a guarantee of coverage. Most of what could be used as a RS by any stretch isn't really usable either. I found mention of the Cthulu PB in a book, but it's not really something that would be used as a reliable source. I have no problem with this being userfied in case more coverage does become available, but a warning: it can take years for conventions to have notability. Some never achieve it, despite running for years and having thousands of visitors. We can't guarantee that it'll gain this coverage either. I wish I could say otherwise, as I'd attend the hell out of this if it was local to me, but this just isn't notable enough to pass our very strict notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cleaned version - The "cleaned up" version mixes the topics of the old and the new convention in a way and manner that pretty much makes it impossible to see the rebooted version as something different, but I can live with that for now. I still request to keep the entry up and kindly keep it in the way it was supposed to be before the changes. I will add sources, reviews and articles as soon as they are available in the next few weeks.LadyLovecraft (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The only problem is that you're assuming that this AfD will last that long. AfDs typically last for only one week, but can last for a few weeks if they're held over due to a lack of consensus. The other thing is that an AfD can be snow closed. My point in mentioning this is that it's really important to try to establish notability in the here and now and not rely on sources that may or may not appear in the future. The thing about future sources is that not only are they not guaranteed to actually appear (papers and such will promise reviews but then not deliver), but you also can't guarantee that they'll be in sources that Wikipedia will consider to be reliable. I don't want to sound like a party pooper, but I'm trying to stress that you can't rely on the potential for future coverage. There have been a lot of things that I would have thought would have gotten buckets of coverage, yet didn't despite initial interest from reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:ORGDEPTH. If there is a "rebooted" version that gets significant coverage, come back and try again. But you can't use Wikipedia to promote that version. Stalwart 111  12:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Innsmouth Press is a very notable publication within the field of weird horror. If they're commenting on the conference it's worth keeping. simonm223 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.135.123.195 (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Innsmouth Free Press may well be a reliable source but what we need is significant coverage in mutliple reliable sources. That's not really significant coverage and it's certainly not "multiple". Stalwart 111  00:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * One thing to be cautious of is that popular or notable within a fandom doesn't always equal out to reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines. This site is very, VERY strict about what it considers to be a reliable source- almost sometimes to the point where it will occasionally seem counter-productive at times. The reason is because sourcing can sometimes become a slippery slope when you judge sources by popularity and fanbase. Not all sites with a large fanbase are reliable, after all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:05, 27 June 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.