Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConQuest SAC

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. The provided news source from Newsnet10 doesn't establish notability for the subject, and the news source from accessmylibrary doesn't appear to contain anything either. The lack of proven notability, plus the consensus determined from this discussion has lead me to close this as delete. Malinaccier (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ConQuest SAC

ConQuest SAC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable convention, no claims of notability, no sources to prove notability. Corvus cornix_talk 00:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per their site, this is a small local con outside the scope of an encyclopedia. No Google news hits indicate there are reliable sources to be ad, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - News Source here Find sources: ConQuest SAC – news, books, scholar

WP:NOT#NEWS Udonknome (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In order to combat false argumentation on Wikipedia, regardless of whether the source is good or not, the response by Udonknome is completely irrelevant. User:Krator (t c) 10:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Simply not notable. Udonknome (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable event. The one source found doesn't seem to convincingly establish notability Bfigura ^(talk) 04:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - single source doesn't establish notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - while the source indicates that the information is verifiable, it doesn't help to establish Notability. Further sourcing would be needed in order to demonstrate notability. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 12:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable.--Berig (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable and pointless Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep News Source establishing notability. http://www.news10.net/video/player_news10.aspx?aid=53618&sid=40086&bw=hi&cat=27 Mondoman (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2008 (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.