Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SoDak 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   keep. Spartaz Humbug! 04:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

SoDak Con

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I used PROD to propose for deletion based on notability, POV, and probable COI. Creator responded removing PROD, and stating they didnt have COI "they were an online advocate and web admin" of the org. Subsequent to that someone else CSDd (G11). Assuming creator deletes the CSD, I am just putting it through AFD to get consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - unremarkable convention. Google news search on "SoDak Con" shows only one result more than a year ago. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * comment creator is making good faith efforts to clean up the page. Currently it still fails notability, but i think we should give the creator a few days to see if he can dig up coverage in local newspapers etc. I was unable to find any in google search, but he may be more motivated. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * changed vote - keep based on creators cleanup, and finding of new sources, I will change my vote to keep. I believe the creator does have a COI issue, but as long as they keep the article NPOV I think it is ok. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep References in the article confirm its notability.  D r e a m Focus  23:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - wikipedia being used to promote an unremarkable minor convention. Off2riorob (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - sources seem to either be non-independent or hyper local. Yaksar (let's chat) 23:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability makes no reference or requirements to the scope of notability. Local reliable coverage is still coverage. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Rapid City Journal is a newspaper of daily circulation, with editorial control, and confirms notability of the conference.Wikfr (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Disclosure: I have made minor adjustments to the article.Wikfr (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing I have seen here has changed my delete position - its mostly primary citations with a couple of promotional reports of a minimally notable sales outlet. I am unhappy with the nominator - if you don't want to delete an article don't nominate it - the nominator is commenting keep against usual practice. There are three clear delete vote comments and there are the creator with a stated involvement and the nominator and User:Dream Focus in support. Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed my vote because the author was able to show notability to my satisfaction. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The article was created by Phoxtank. He/she has not voted.  My involvement was only to demonstrate to a new editor how the article could be improved.  I think the nominator changed his/her vote, after the creator improved the article. Wikfr (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Does anyone not believe http://www.sequentialtart.com/article.php?id=1907 is significant coverage in a reliable source? 223 Wikipedia articles have a link to this website, and it looks reliable to me.   D r e a m Focus  14:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment (I am the article creator.) -- Not certain if I'm allowed to put down an actual keep vote or not. As contribution to this debate I wanted to just clear up a few things.  The original article that Gaijin42 reported in on isn't really the same as how the article is listed now.  The entire page has been re-vamped and adjusted to fall in accordance as best as I can translate from wiki's requirements and guidelines.   I have also reviewed the information on COI and NPOV and have made the adjustments to the discussion page as well as my own personal talk page to disclose my involvement to further express that it is not my intention to post a biased article to wiki.  I have found reliable news sources to help with notability as well, including the local daily news paper Rapid City Journal and Kota Territory News (abc).  My intention's weren't to abuse wiki in any manner and I am hoping that the many adjustments that have been made have helped the article.  If more adjustments are needed it is open to be edited and I have no qualms about negative or positive edits being added or removed with valid or citable reasons or resources. I appreciate everyone's concerns and feedback about the article and am open for further advice to make the article more compliant. -- I am new to wiki-ing, and where as it doesn't excuse my mistakes for not fully reading the available information for assisting with "new articles", I am still learning and do intend on keeping everything about edit's and articles NPOV in the future to help avoid issues like this.Phoxtank (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2011 (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.