Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daigacon (3rd 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. Secret account 02:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daigacon

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Daigacon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Doesn't have the notability or attendance numbers to justify inclusion - by a wide stretch. Was previously voted "Deleted" by consensus but still remains somehow. DJBullfish (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Per the logs, this article has been deleted six times previously for approximately the same reason it has been nominated again. On 7 March 2007, it was restored with the comment, ”This convention occured. No reason to keep deleted.” —Travistalk 04:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What this all means, I'm not entirely sure. But just thought I'd make clear that some of the debates took place before the event took place. The recreation was legitimate, and the resulting AfD was needed. What this AfD is, is a continuation of the no consensus debate from March 2007. The previous deletions, though justified, shouldn't really impact this debate. Carcharoth (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I originally protested The Cunctator's restoration of the article because it was completely out of process and didn't go to WP:DRV.[1] If there were enough reliable third party sources to pass the notability guidelines, then the article should have been recreated using those sources, but it should not have been restored. Also the original reason for deleting the convention wasn't just because it hadn't happened, but that its notability could not be predicted either. --Farix (Talk) 21:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a big deal, really. On some days DRV would agree that a relist at AfD is needed, and on some days DRV would effectively have the AfD debate there (at DRV) instead. What is happening is that we are having the AfD debate here, and it is quite possible that the 'no consensus' from last time will become 'delete'. What you could have done last time is take the undeletion to DRV, instead of having a second AfD, but the same argument applies. My view is that it is reasonable to reassess the notability after the event has taken place, and that can happen either at DRV or AfD. Insisting on process doesn't help anyone, least of all the article itself. Carcharoth (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We base the notability of a convention on if it can pass WP:NOTE or WP:ORG. We don't base it off on the size of the attendance.
  • Tsubasacon only had 407 its first year and 227 during the second, but still received sufficient coverage during the first year to pass the notability guidelines. So attendance isn't a factor in determining notability. --Farix (Talk) 21:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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.