Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pensacola Para 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   keep. Davewild (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Pensacola Para Con

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, advertising The Banner talk 21:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Yes, the article's tone and style are problems, but considering the amount of coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG we might think it more a matter for clean-up than for deletion. 00:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But when you check Google News, you see only 24 hits (13, in effect), while the 16k normal Google hits boil down to a mere 120 hits. The Banner  talk 02:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops. Are you invoking GHITS? It explains "...a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized..." and "the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number."  We do not expect a Pensacola festival to be covered by Times of London and WP:N does not say we need hundreds or even dozens of citations to satisfy inclusion criteria. WP:ORG is met.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 04:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting to see that this kind of reasoning is never or at least seldom used when discussing a non-USA subject. The Banner talk 18:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Alt:

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 03:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Does the article need clean-up? Yes. Does it need footnotes instead of a list of citations? Of course. Should an editor go in with a chainsaw and prune those giant lists of names? You bet. But does the article cross the verifiability and notability thresholds with cited in-depth coverage from reliable third-party sources. Also yes, and that's why it should be kept. (And then fixed.) - Dravecky (talk) 01:31, 27 March 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.