Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Picocon


 * 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.  So Why  10:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Picocon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article in question provides very little context or history of the convention itself (per WP:N(E)) and no references or citations outside of external links. The homepage to said event doesn't list much information and the infomrmation I have found only directs back to another user-edited encyclopedia. |Picocon article on Fanlore Snickers2686 (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Incubate - The list of guests of honour includes some very notable science fiction authors (Pratchett, Baxter...) - this itself establishes WP:NOTABILITY - however without reliable sources this article should not be included on Wikipedia. If the original author is interested, or anyone else, in continuing work on the article, including referencing, then I would support incubation until the article is of a sufficient standard to be moved into article-space. Keira  1996  04:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability is not inherited. Notability of guests does not establish that the convention is notable. --ColinFine (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand inheritance. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep but expand I don't think the problem here is about reliable sources (the convention webpage itself, one assumes, is reliable) but the sufficiency of sources. I would encourage more detail about the history of the convention, whether it's been referenced in places other than the Picocon web page itself, any notable incidents or appearances, etc. --khaosworks101 (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: 'Keep but expand' by all means once notability has been established. The convention's webpage is a primary source, and is incapable of establishing notability. --ColinFine (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete reluctantly (as I am part of that culture, though I haven't attended a Picocon). I would have been prepared to argue for Ansible and File 770 being reliable sources for this purpose, but the former mentions it only in listing, and the latter not at all. Disclosure: I have been arguing this off-Wiki with some contributors to the article. --ColinFine (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I have now added in a number of references, including one from Boing Boing Net. They appear to establish this as long running convention, with A list authors/guests regularly appearing including Iain M Banks, Terry Pratchet, lots of others. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete an annual speaking panel does not make a convention, and that's all the sources/article discusses currently. I'd recommend the entire "Guests of Honour" section be deleted in any scenario; Arisia is an example of a more-notable convention with a better-written article. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep primarily on the basis of recently added sources, though I would hope that they can be bettered. Artw (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a near thing, but I'm going to opine that the GNG is adequately met with the inclusion of the recently added sources. Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2017 (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.