Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AnimeIowa

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AnimeIowa

AnimeIowa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Although an editor claims notability, I can find no evidence of this, other than the fact that the event actually does happen. Nearly all "references" provided are first-party information, press releases, or blogs. Google search on name brings back only 294 unique of about 389 external hits, nearly all blogs, directories, or simple listings. No legitimate news mentions found - LexisNexis search also returns zero news stories from entire archive. Based on the lack of reliable sources, coupled with the fact that large sections read like an advertisement, I cannot agree that the convention is notable enough for inclusion, and recommend Delete. MikeWazowski 04:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Nom in Bad Faith Speedy Keep Even though I hate to do it, I have to accuse you of bad faith here... Perhaps because of the other two AfDs we've participated in. The Children of The Con article, and the several Fan's View articles are more than enough to establish notability. Kopf1988 04:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please keep your accusations of bad faith to yourself, as they are unfounded. The "Children of the Con" and "Fan's View" articles are essentially blog entries, which according to Wikipedia standards, are not reliable sources, as you can read here. You disagree with my reasons, I get that - I suggest you read WP:ILIKEIT#I_like_it, as I believe this most definitely applies in your case. MikeWazowski 04:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You can not equate those FansView to a blog. The editor has reviewed dozens of Anime Conventions, and is a pretty reliable source. Moreover, have you ever read, Arguments to avoid in a deleltion discussion... I think you have. Maybe they weren't in bad faith... but I cant say much else without getting into personal attacks which I will not do any further. Kopf1988 04:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I also consulted LexisNexis, which catalogs newpapers, journals, magazines, and even some TV news broadcasts from all over the globe. The absolute lack of returns there speaks of a serious lack of mainstream press reporting on the event, which led to my conclusion that there was a lack of reliable sources. MikeWazowski 07:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone keep the personal attacks out of this -- especially folks who have been warned on this before, per their own discussion pages. Ad hominem has no place here in Wikipedia. -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 17:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - AnimeIowa is one of the longest running and well known anime conventions in the United States. It has been featured in numerous (print) issues of Protoculture Addicts as well as Animerica and/or Newtype USA. There is absolutely no question in my mind that AnimeIowa is notable and I'm very surprised it would even be considered for deletion. --PatrickD 04:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In this case, some citations would help - just saying it's so doesn't cut the mustard. I've found references to the con on the *forums* at Animerica, and references to *listings* of con reports in Protoculture Addicts - this, however, does not actually confer notability on the convention, it just verifies that it happened. Were the con reports written by journalists or were they fan submissions? There is a difference here, one very important to the future of this article. If the "features" you mention are not online, do you have access to the magazine to offer a scan for review? MikeWazowski 04:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't a whole bunch of people talking about it, plus the addition of other sources only bolster its claim of being worthy of being noted? It might not, but regardless there are enough sources in this article Mike. Kopf1988 04:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Protoculture Addicts, Animerica, and (I'm 99% sure) Newtype USA had actual articles written in their print editions (available "at fine newsstands everywhere") about the convention that were written by regular staff writers (not fans). I've seen them, but unfortunately I do not have the issues myself so I am unable to provide the sources or scan them. However, if someone could dig those up, it would be great. --PatrickD 19:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless multiple reliable published sources can be found. The nom is correct in pointing out that none of the references in the article are reliable sources, they're all blogs and forums and such; there's no way to substantiate any of the claims made here. — Krimpet (talk/review) 05:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The only forums and such types of articles are to verify information and give attribution to some of the statements. These statements are hardly controversial anyway, and don't even need those refs. You MAY be able to equate one or two of the sources to blogs, but [Fans View] is considered a reliable and attributable source in this area. The Anime News Network article is a NEWS ARTICLE about the convention. See Talk:AnimeIowa for even MORE sources. Kopf1988 19:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete tho it looks real interesting. article would have to be better done and more info with bettter refs etc. then ok may change me mind --Zedco 10:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Question Zedco, what's your native language?? Also have you noticed that the article is underconstruction? Meaning that it is in the process of being better written. We/I have been working to make it an extremely great article. Kopf1988 19:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• what? whats my native lanuage got to do with it? anyawys article gets deleted, you go away and complete it properly, then come bak and put it up properly like you should have done in the first place.--Zedco 09:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Because I don't want to incorrectly interpret your spelling/grammar. As for your argument, not all encyclopedia entries start out perfect. Wikipedia grows because of that. One person makes an article with just one viewpoint. Someone else adds a second viewpoint. Third person cleans it up, fixing simple mistakes. Fourth person makes sure all details and viewpoints are covered, and suddenly we have a good encyclopedia entry. Kopf1988 22:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. Clean up requirement is no reason to delete it, we just need some cites and stuff. --Dennisthe2 22:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, and clean up, though I was amused to have seen this nominated as a GA candidate prior to appearing on AfD. (Perhaps a BIT premature?) -- RoninBK _{T C} 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe just a tiny bit, lol. Kopf1988 23:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. If the people involved think they can reference it better, then let them try. However, if there's no new references other than fan testimonies etc, it should definately be deleted. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. Certainly, local newspapers should have coverage of this event, as well as the sources mentioned by Patrick above. -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 17:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - while I've been going to conventions for over 20 years and would normally be inclined to keep, the lack of multiple independent reliable sources (especially the lack of local media sources) over 10 years leads me to vote against them. TheRealFennShysa 15:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Long running and well known anime convention; media citations would be easier to find through Google if there weren't discussions about the con on hundreds of forums, but I'm sure they exist somewhere. Also, ANN is one of the most credible sources there is in terms of anime related news and topics. -- Samurai Drifter
• Comment I have mixed feelings about this. This is one of the older anime conventions. But the question becomes, does age confer notability? Also, does the fact that this is the first and only convention in Iowa confer notability and can such a claim be attributed to a reliable source? As far as reliable sources, only the ANN article would be considered towards notable. AnimeCons.com is a directory listing and cannot confer notability. The problem with A Fan's View, which is more of a picture diary then an actual review, is that anyone can publish reviews on the web, but it is entirely different to get that review published in something with editorial control, like Newtype USA. As for articles in Newtype USA, unless I missed it or it was in an issue I don't have, I never came across one while I was going through my back issues a few weeks back. --Farix (Talk) 20:23, 26 March 2007 (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.