Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RadCon


 * 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. Nja 247 10:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

RadCon

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

Notability; no reliable, published, third party sources. Prod deleted without sourcing article. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-19t12:25z 12:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The only sources I could find on a Google search are and, both from the local newspaper, which don't let it pass WP:N, so I have to say Delete. Thanks,   Genius  101 Guestbook  13:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you point to the part of WP:N that says that about local sources? Hobit (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I found another source other than the ones you mentioned: . I personally think that this solidly meets WP:N.  The three articles here are written in detail about the topic, we now have two independent sources, and if you read the articles, you will find that the convention has been going for over 16 years.  It may not be interesting to everyone but I certainly think it is worth keeping and I certainly think it meets WP:N.  Cazort (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine for a blog of fan site, but how does a local station writeup make it encyclopedically notable.? -- Jeandré, 2009-04-19t14:51z
 * I tend to want to keep local interests more often than other users. I personally believe that coverage in local sources, for an uncontroversial topic such as this one, is sufficient to establish notability.  But I'm aware that this is in conflict with the proposed guidelines on WP:NLI, which incidentally I don't agree with.  So, I understand where you're coming from but I must respectfully disagree and still say that I believe we should keep this page (along with other, similar cases).  At the very minimum, I would prefer to Merge this article into Pasco, WA rather than delete it.  One rationale, however, for keeping this article separate would be that (a) even according to the stricter standards on WP:NLI, reading: "local sources (such as local newspapers) may be used without limit to include and verify information contained within the article", the sources given are enough to establish fairly extensive coverage of this topic, and (b) including all that material on the page for Pasco, WA, would make that page long and unbalanced.  Cazort (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've been reading (and reflecting on) WP:NLI and I think that the situation under "Excessive size of parent article" heading would apply here. Cazort (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete — Non-notable convention. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Snarky Comment I would appreciate it if you, and others, would actually engage in discussion, highlighting the reasons for your view, rather than just making assertions like "non-notable". This is a discussion, not a vote, and the goal is to reach consensus.  Cazort (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - due to the lack of coverage beyond the local press. I do not think local press alone can be relied on to be the basis of a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia article or establish a topics notability per the general notability guideline. Local press covers something because it happens locally, on a slow week (most weeks) almost anything can receive coverage. As they are generally supported and staffed by the local community they report on, I do not think they can be counted on to present the news in a neutral fashion and - whilst this is not the case across the board - their editorial standards often leave a lot to be desired. Guest9999 (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:RS is WP:RS. An editorial staff with a reputation for fact-checking, does not set a minimum or maximun limit of circulation or coverage. Rewrite RS and then rewrite WP:N.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is I do not believe that most local newspapers have the reputation for fact checking and accuracy that is required by WP:RS for - among others - the reasons I gave above. Most articles like the one's given here are really just a form of advertising for the local community, with accuracy and scrutiny over detail not at the forefront of the staff's mind; circulation has nothing to do with it. WP:N requires significant coverage, the major headline in my local newspaper last week was something along the lines of "cat rescued from tree", whilst it may have been an in-depth account I put it to you that neither the cat nor the rescuer or indeed the incident itself would be deemed worthy of inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Guest9999 (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's safe to assume that local news sources have less integrity than national ones...if anything, when it comes to local events they can sometimes be more reliable because they know the area, know the local events, and often have staff with slightly more time on their hands. Also, I think that the standards of editorial integrity ought to vary for different topics.  This topic is highly non-controversial!  I think it's good to be skeptical of the integrity of a source when there is good reason to believe that there could be an incentive for the information to be false, or at least, a high likelihood that the information is sloppy.  But I don't see any reason this would be the case here.  Cazort (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per cazort, sources make it notable. Ikip (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep article about notable genre-specific film festival. Send to WP:CLEANUP for further sourcing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * weak keep Local sources aren't generally good enough per WP:ORG, which might apply to a Con. But it isn't clear and it meets WP:N just barely.  Hobit (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Non-notable? I posted the article because RadCon is one of the longest-running conventions in Washington. It isn't as famous as some conventions like DragonCon or GenCon, but it is a pretty good sized convention and it is larger and older than many of the conventions on the sci-fi convention list.  I feel the convention is notable because it essentially serves 3 large areas that are very far from any other conventions, namely South Eastern Washington, Eastern Oregon and Idaho, and it attracts people from all three states.  I believe part of the reason for the lack of sources is the area in which the convention is located.  There are no major news outlets in the area, only small local papers and TV stations, all of which are usually too busy writing stories about cow tippers and barn fires to bother doing any actual reporting on the convention.  So, I think the convention is notable, and that it's essentially the disadvantages of it's geographical location that are to blame for the lack of sources. PapilioNireus (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2009 (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.