Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SugoiCon

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. KrakatoaKatie 16:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SugoiCon

Non-notable anime con, no claims of notability, no independent sources. Corvus cornix 22:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The convention has been the subject of two different articles by Newtype USA. Both of which are listed on the article's talk page as sources to be used. --Farix (Talk) 23:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Farix (Talk) 23:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources,non-notable, writing style problems. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at the article, particularly the existing reference section, or its talk page? Parts of the article is already sourced and the contents of the talk page demonstrates that the article can pass WP:NOTE. We don't delete articles because the are "partially sourced" or because of poor writing style. --Farix (Talk) 00:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources are from a non-reliable source. Corvus cornix 01:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newtype USA is not reliable? That's ... an interesting claim. —Quasirandom 01:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That's the first time I've seen AnimeCons.com declared as non-reliable source. AnimeCons.com does verify all information from the convention's website or press releases. If they can't verify it, they don't include it. While it can't confer notability because it is a directory, it does meet the qualifications of a reliable sources under WP:V. I'm also taking from your comment that you are declairing Newtype USA as unreliable as well. Can you explain how a nationally published trade magazine be unreliable? --Farix (Talk) 01:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Where are the guidelines for notability for fan conventions? Even if there are some written for specifically science fiction convention, that would offer some guidance here. Though if there are unincorporated Newtype references, I'd think that'd suffice to establish notability. (Oy, the text reads like an ad, though.) —Quasirandom 01:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan conventions are organizations, so WP:ORG is the guideline that applies. But any subject that passes WP:NOTE would pass any of the sub-notability guidelines. --Farix (Talk) 01:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Farix. Article has reliable sources. Edward321 05:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup per Farix. Suggest that y'all might want to actually put information in the article from the Newtype USA articles and cite it as such, rather than just mentioning it on the talk page. Rather unfortunate that this is the kind of article that editors put effort into translating into four languages while much more important topics remain monolingually English, Japanese, etc., but that's life, I suppose. cab 05:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. It needs more information, and not just from the Newtype USA material. (A quick Google search pointed to a couple of newspaper articles about it.)jonathon 23:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would, could you post those to the article's talk page. --Farix (Talk) 00:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And I suppose none of you has SugoiCon's program books from each year for reference? They are actually the definitive source for information, and they are very citeable. Are they so invisible to you just because you can't google them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.184.255 (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Those would not be independant sources. Edward321 14:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added the 2 references. Bearian 22:32, 15 October 2007 (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.