Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Setsucon (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Only objections are that sources exist, but others showed that none of the sources presented so far meet GNG's requirements of being both independent and significant. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Setsucon
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article was deleted in 2007. The current version does not show any indiciation why it passes WP:EVENT. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  19:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep There is now coverage, so what happened years ago isn't relevant to now. Anime News Network covers them in multiple articles.  I find one college newspaper covering them.  Other sources already in the article.  Notable people in the industry have appeared there.   D r e a m Focus  01:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Notable people appear at many conventions, even small ones. Hell we had Johnny Depp at one of our local conventions. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  08:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'd like to note that one of the biggest sources on the page is "www.animecons.com/", a site that merely lists convention dates and listings. Even the smallest and non-noteworthy of cons can get listed there, so I don't see where that would count as a reliable source at all. It's like listing IMDb as a source for various movies actors have been in. Other listings on the page include the con's forum (which can't be a reliable source) and a video blog that's released by a representative of the convention. Even if it wasn't, Vidgle appears to be the equivalent of YouTube and the videos aren't by anyone official or an official news entity. The listing on ANN is a press release, not an article about the convention at all. There's nothing here that can be considered a reliable source out there. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Amend: There has been 1 RS review added.That is still not enough for the WP:GNG let alone WP:EVENT. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  06:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - In agreement this does not pass WP:EVENT. Jun Kayama 19:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - In agreement with Dream Focus's argument. This article now has many notable people attending it plus it is being covered by authorized sites on the subject such as ANN.  The newspaper articles also seem legit.  Idk what that "Vidgle" thing is that was pointed out earlier, but I guess it was removed.  I see no reason why this page should not pass.  It's a smaller convention, but it has good attendance.  And appears to be growing.  I say we keep the article for now and just keep it under watch, like the page for "Zenkaikon"--my home convention in Philadelphia.  MoonlightWanderer90 (talk)MoonlightWanderer90  —Preceding undated comment added 08:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC).
 * Comment Here's the issues I have with the links as follows:
 * 1) This just says when the con happens. This site will list any con that gives their information to this site. This is little more than a press release.
 * 2) This is a college website and I'm not too sure how notable this particular college newspaper is.
 * 3-4) These are links to animecons and only shows the dates the cons occurred. Existing and holding cons does NOT equate to notability. I can hold a party and put out press releases, but that does not give that party notability.
 * 5) This is just the forums for the convention. Not usable as a reliable source at all.
 * 6-9) These link to information about OTHER cons and do not refer to Setsucon at all. Size does not equal notability either.
 * 10) This is a link to the same college newspaper as before. So far these are the only remotely reliable links and you need more than a college newspaper's reports of the convention.
 * 11) Setsucon is mentioned once, briefly in the article. It is not about Setsucon at all. Setsucon is just mentioned as an example. It cannot be used even as a trivial source.
 * 12) Doesn't mention Setsucon at all.
 * 13) This is a list of events for Otakon. Doesn't mention Setsucon at all and besides, it's just a press release.
 * 14) This is a page from the Otakon website. Does not mention Setsucon at all.
 * 15-17) Here are more press releaseson from animecons.com. STILL not reliable sources that show notability.
 * 18) Another link to the Setsucon forums. Still not usable as a reliable source.
 * 19-20) These are both links to the Setsucon website. Not usable as a reliable source showing notability.

None of these links are usable as far as notability proving goes and I'm surprised that people are claiming that they are. The only ones that seem remotely usable are the college papers and we need more than just a college newspaper giving two reports of the con. There's no notability here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Comment Has everyone seen all the sources that the other anime cons are using on Wikipedia? I think we're being a bit harsh in judgement.  Examples:  Anime Boston, PortConMaine, AnimeNEXT, They all cite AnimeCons.com for their numbers, because where else can you get those numbers from?  Maybe from their own sites... But that's it.  Even if ANN or someone big reports on it, it will just be noted as a "press release." ... I'm claiming the same notability for sources as you, tokyogirl79, but I just give those sources that do provide credibility more value (i.e. the newspaper articles and actually  being noticed by ANN --meaning that they bothered to appear at their con and review it) . Of course the writers of this wiki need to cite the con's website and some direct material.  But you kind of need to, though.  How else do you prove that something exists then by citing the event itself? I guess what I would like to see is more substance taken from the newspaper articles and have some extraneous info taken out.  Then, I think it could be a nice little article.  It has a lot of potential in my opinion.MoonlightWanderer90 (talk)MoonlightWanderer90  —Preceding undated comment added 13:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC).
 * Reply - The state of other articles is not under discussion here. Those other conventions may also be non-notable and possibly be deleted to.  Simply claiming that press releases and directory entries impart notability does not make it so.  I too would like to see more substance taken from newspaper articles.  The problem here is that is no such coverage with which to develop the article.  If there are such newspaper articles, I am unable to find them, and nobody else has provided any either. -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's a big difference between a news source reporting on a convention and a press release. A news source reporting on a convention is where they write their own piece about a convention. A press release is something that is written up by the convention president/managers and their press division and then handed to the news to run. A press release is not written by Anime News Network, nor is it written by AnimeCons.com. AnimeCons.com just reports the data that is handed to them. The issue heere is that people are trying to use it as a reliable source that shows notability and it's not and can't be used in that aspect. What bothers me about people trying to say that ANN wrote about Setsucon is that really, they didn't. It's mentioned once, as a one sentence piece where they mention convention panels. It's not about Setsucon at all and they were only used as an example. It can't even be used as a trivial source. It's like Russell Brand saying that he likes bacon flavored olives once in an article where he talks predominantly about his new movie, then someone trying to use that as a reference for an article about bacon flavored olives. The only things I find on ANN about Setsucon are press releases that are sent directly to ANN from Setsucon itself. As far as writing a real article about Setsucon, ANN has done no such thing. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * There are 63 results at Anime News Network . They think it is notable enough to mention when it is happening, and who will be there. A lot of the results seem to be pres releases, but still, if they weren't notable, then the Anime News Network wouldn't publish those.  D r e a m Focus  15:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply - Can you point out which of those represents significant indpendent coverage? A vague wave of the hand saying that an abundance of search results must indicate notability is not one of the criteria that satisifies any of our notability guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. We still need reliable sources to show that it's notable and press releases, no matter how many there are, is not really a show of notability. It could just mean that Setsucon has a very good press department that is diligent in forwarding press releases to various offices. Web hits, whether it's on google or on ANN, does not bestow notability no matter what the number because if it is truly notable then you'll have multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the con's publicity team. (IE, that they write their own stories instead of publishing press releases for the con.) I hate to sound obstinate, but this needs more than just press releases and college newspapers. Most conventions aren't notable enough to be on here, unfortunately. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Is there anything gained by deleting this article? Whether or not a newspaper reporter cares about something enough to write about it, isn't really a good way to judge things as notable.  That's why the guidelines are suggestions, not absolute rules.  Wikipedia is not a moot court or a bureaucracy. WP:BURO A conventions seen as notable enough by those in the industry for them to appear there every year, is clearly notable.   D r e a m Focus  17:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is something to be gained. We keep Wikipedia from being cluttered with articles about non-notable subjects.  Otherwise, why bother with a notability guidelines at all.  Notability isn't established by the presence of notable individuals who are generally paid to make an appearance. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The lack of independent coverage is evident. This article is borderline WP:SPIP and Tokyogirl79 has a solid case. Nothing is served by making this a stand-alone article in its own right. Jun Kayama 17:53, 4 January 2012 (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.