Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramencon


 * 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. GoldenRing (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ramencon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non notable convention.The references appear to be a mix of PR and notices, and there's no reason why a local convention would have anything else.  DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Note: I am the creator of the article. While the sourcing is not the strongest, we have coverage from local (The Times) and two statewide sources (Inside INdiana Business, Chicago Tribune). I believe with this mix, Ramencon meets the minimum for notability, but weakly. Esw01407 (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep - As the article creator suggested, the sourcing is not the best, but the coverage the convention has received from the Chicago Tribune (a well-regarded newspaper) makes me inclined to think that the article passes our notability guidelines, if barely. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- "the first anime convention in Northwest Indiana" is hardly a claim to notability, and significant RS coverage that discusses the subject directly and in detail not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - very small convention with no significant coverage from RSs outside of the local newspaper. Cjhard (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Triptothecottage (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is not enough local or even state coverage to establish notability, especially in the lack of a claim to significance. ThePortaller (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I've removed the egregiously-excessive annual details. There's not a good case for notability here, but no other case to delete the article other than a lack of notability is presented. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Normally I abstain from qualifiers, but I find myself agreeing with Power~enwiki a little bit. The mentions aren't real great, but I feel they just get in through the GNG. NWItimes, a Tribune article and another Tribune mention is good enough for me. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  13:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I'm sorry but I just don't see this passing WP:GNG, the coverage doesn't really go that in depth on the subject. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:23, 10 July 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.