Talk:PrinceCon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm new around here, so I'm trying to learn the guidelines. I am aware that "vanity" articles are discouraged. I thought perhaps that this was not, for a few reasons: (1) the age of the convention, which distinguishes it, and (2) there was an open link under the Gaming Conventions article, and a number of other conventions appeared to have entries. It seems to me that open links like this should be removed if an article on the subject in question is not desired, so that newbies like me won't get confused and waste their effort. :-)
Anyway, if there is a consensus that this topic is too specialized, I won't argue, but it didn't seem clear to me. Constructive feedback to me would be appreciated if you care to provide it. Thanks.
That said, I just read the notability guidelines, and have to admit that there is nothing there that seems to apply directly. So please consider this a humble request for a second opinion.
- Welcome here once more, as you cna see your request for a second opion has already been granted. Moreover, you've hit right on some important points. One of them is that the importance of a topic is more difficult to assess when there is only a redlink, than when it is actually written about and may be accessible to people like myself. Thsi holds even more true for simple lists that tend to expand. So it works the other way round: If this article was deleted the adminstrator should also check for pages linking here. Tikiwont 20:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Although it is no longer among the largest conventions, PrinceCon is fairly notable from a historical perspective. It was one of the very first public RPG events, and it first introduced the super-dungeon, "campaign in a weekend" format that has been widely imitated since. --Meara 19:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, but how do you know? Having been there would not count WP:NOR and the website is only a firts answer. Tikiwont 20:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't follow. The WP:NOR page you reference states "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source." Wouldn't the written contributions of "having been there" be an eyewitness account of PrinceCon I, or XVI, or XXXI? If not, what would be considered a reliable source? Alex.reutter 02:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind. I see the text "This January 2007 needs sources or references that appear in credible, third-party publications" at the top of the article. I see the general point in this, but it seems a difficult requirement to fulfill for a topic whose history is largely oral -- perhaps we could provide scans of the original convention books if Bob West still has copies, but no role-playing convention's early years are going to attract reporters, and only the largest (GenCon, et al) are likely to attract them in any year. Alex.reutter 02:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Is this page notable? Has this Con received notice in publications not involved with it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
