Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pheo-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   delete (WP:SNOW). Please note this has been userfied on request for potential restoration in the future as a vialble article, if it can be revised to meet the below criteria cited as reasons for deletion. Neıl ☎  14:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Pheo-Con

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A "made up" convention with no claim of notability, no reliable sources to support it, and contents of article is entirely unverifiable original research. Previously prodded on March 24 but was removed by --Farix (Talk) 21:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Gsearch not showing a whiff of notability.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Posted By Joshua Andrade, COO, Lazarus Entertainment Group

Unfortunately, the Ikkicon website is down right now (www.ikkicon.com) for updates for their next convention. All of the original information (including information from unrelated 3rd parties).

The latest rendition of the AtsuiCon forums has added a section to their forums dedicated to special groups who hold "meetups" at conventions across Texas - such as Gaia Online (www.gaiaonline.com/), obviously another "fake" group. http://atsuicon.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=18

While it isn't a scholarly article like you find source for all of the other Wiki articles, you can also reference Anime Matsuri's forums (http://www.mashharder.com/forums/showpost.php?p=62472&postcount=113).

This article was created after consultation with several admins regarding the qualifications of events to be listed under Wiki. I wrote the original wording, and it was edited by eris.alice to make it conform to standard Wiki formats.

Finally, the comment "Ego Trip" shows an obvious lack of any form of professional integrity. While the editors of Wiki are not paid, they should do their best to maintain a neutral position to ensure that their actions are legitimate and fair, instead of displaying a gestapo attack against any topic which they do not personally have a personal interest. As a business executive, I must (on occasion) publicly display a position that is against my personal feelings or agenda because it is the official stance of the corporation that I work for. I must maintain a "neutral" position, leaving my personal agenda out in order for accurate, legitimate business functions to continue. Try it some time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meauho (talk • contribs) 01:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC) — Meauho (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment None of the links that you have provided gives any indication that Pheo-Con can pass any of the notability criteria, much else can become remotely verifiable through reliable third-party sources. As for the "consultation with several admins", where is it? because a full site search isn't turn up any. --Farix (Talk) 02:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability is just a guideline. No reliable sources, now that's a quality reason to delete. Kopf1988 (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; no reliable sources which demonstrate notability for this subject. Appears completely unverifiable. --Haemo (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. No assertion of notability. Fails Google News test, Google test. Comparing other editors to the Gestapo does not help your case; see Godwin's Law. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Look. I think everyone is being a bit brash here. I suggest that we approach this in a more formal fashion and not just have random people pop up and yell "delete!". We need to determine the notability criterion for a convention, then move foreward from there, alright? Jack Cain (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Notability criteria are here and here, at which this "fake" convention doesn't meet. --Farix (Talk) 10:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment For one thing, I think you're confusing "fake" and "satirical", sir. Jack Cain (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It still doesn't pass any of the notability criteria. --Farix (Talk) 11:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Notability is just a guideline anyway. Why would we argue over notability when this article does not first pass WP:V? Notability criteria should be determined when relevant, but this article does not even get that far. Kopf1988 (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Its pretty much just a panel at a few conventions, no? It isn't EVEN a convention, its just a convention event, and a very local one at that.  Now, if it were an actual self-sustained convention, that might be another thing. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 20-Mule Team Delete: For pity's sake, no one's being "brash." This is not a "convention."  It's a bunch of folks - an alleged bunch of folks - getting together for a self-referential party, and they admit the first one of the two of these solely involved a group trip getting munchies at a Wal-Mart.  There are no sources, almost no G-hits, no evidence this actually took place, no suggestion of notability, no nothing, and I am at a near-complete loss to imagine upon what policy basis anyone can defend the article.  Spectacularly fails WP:NFT, WP:ORG, WP:V, but man, does this hit WP:BULLSHIT pretty solidly.    RGTraynor  13:24, 7 May 2008 (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.