Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daigacon (3rd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

[edit] Daigacon

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Daigacon Articles for deletion/Daigacon (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Daigacon (3rd nomination)
Daigacon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (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)

  • 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)
  • Comment - Just because something occurs doesn't mean it's inclusion is justified. And we've been through this deletion nomination before - it's not significant for inclusion. The convention, to date, just [b]isn't[/b] noteworthy enough for inclusion. DJBullfish (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, it was restored after the first AfD without going through WP:DRV. --Farix (Talk) 04:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Timeline - let's get the timeline right here...
    • 17:16, 1 December 2006 - article created by User:Silentsam84
    • 17:21, 1 December 2006 - article deleted (A7 - no notability asserted)
    • 17:27, 1 December 2006 - article recreated by User:Silentsam84 (no change)
    • 17:30, 1 December 2006 - article deleted ("still does not assert notability")
    • 20:13, 1 December 2006 - article recreated by User:Silentsam84 (slightly different)
    • 15:49, 13 January 2007 - nominated for deletion (see 1st AfD)
    • 05:49, 18 January 2007 - article deleted following the AfD
    • 18:24, 1 February 2007 - article recreated by User:Silentsam84
    • 01:47, 2 February 2007 article deleted (G4 - repost)
    • 07:50, 22 February 2007 article recreated by User:Necrolotu
    • 12:17, 22 February 2007 article deleted (G4 - repost)
    • 22:49, 22 February 2007 article recreated by User:Silentsam84
    • 23:06, 22 February 2007 - page blanked by User:Silentsam84
    • 01:52, 23 February 2007 article deleted (G4 - repost)
    • 01:57, 23 February 2007 - User:Silentsam84 blocked
    • 2-4 March 2007 - Daigacon convention takes place
    • 23:31, 7 March 2007 - page history restored by User:The Cunctator ("This convention occured. No reason to keep deleted")
    • 22:45, 7 March 2007 - article turned from db-blank to old content by User:The Cunctator
    • 22:50, 7 March 2007 - User:Silentsam84 unblocked by User:The Cunctator ("Newbie who posted reasonable request to unblock-en-l")
    • 19:15, 8 March 2007 - 2nd AfD nomination (see here)
    • 00:30, 17 March 2007 - kept following AfD (no consensus)
    • March 2007 to January 2008 - During that 2nd AfD, and between then and now, various edits have changed the article, and there have been many months to see if the article can grow any further, or be improved.
    • 03:37, 15 January 2008 - nominated for deletion a third time (that's this discussion, though my fixing of the numbering means the edit summary here links to the 2nd discussion, something I partially addresses using a null edit two edits later to provide the correct link)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Delete - An attendance of 257 people is pretty much the definition of non-notable. No guests of importance, either. Doceirias (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 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.
  • Comment and being tiny and insignificant fails notability. Doceirias (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)


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.