Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Llamacon (2nd nomination)

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 of the debate was delete. The best argument presented about this being notable is coverage in a local newspaper, and the argument that this is a fairly weak claim to notability seems has been made by Rossami. I am not altogether convinced by the "Digimon-comparison" argument either since Digimon is a series, while this is presently a one-time event. With a greater than two-thirds majority for deletion, I am calling this a delete decision. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Llamacon

This was previously deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Llamacon, but WP:DRV overturned this for a mixture of concerns over lack of involvement. See here. -Splash^talk 23:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I originally brought it to DRV, for clarity. For one, at least three notable webcomic artists attended: R. K. Milholland from Something Positive, Jeph Jacques from Questionable Content, and Richard Stevens from Diesel Sweeties, among others. The convention was covered in the Berkshire Eagle, a newspaper with a circulation over 30k. As noted at DRV, we do not have a guideline regarding conventions of this nature, and while it qualifies under WP:BIO, which is good for individuals, it doesn't qualify under WP:CORP, which is good for companies. A convention is neither, but for a group to put on a convention featuring three notable people and recieving non-trivial news coverage, I feel it meets basic notability standards. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• I believe that WP:CORP does apply to conventions. My apologies for repeating what was said in the DRV discussion but I'll try to save others from having to dig around for it. Conventions are collective activities involving multiple people working together for mutual benefit. That is the classic "social compact" definition of a business. WP:CORP is not limited to only corporations but was explicitly written to cover non-profits and other organizational forms. The tests and criteria have been developed to help weigh these kinds of collective activities. Furthermore, most conventions are specifically run as a for-profit enterprise with the intent of providing goods and/or services to the participants and profits (either direct or through advertising value) to the organizers.
  WP:BIO, on the other hand, is explicitly written to apply to individuals and does not apply in this case. (When comparing a convention to a company or to a human, I consider a convention to be more like a company and not at all like a human.) However, even if you did attempt to apply WP:BIO to a convention, a single mention in a newspaper would still fail to qualify as an inclusion criterion.
  The most relevant criterion at WP:CORP appears to be the "multiple, non-trivial press coverage" criterion. A single mention in a local newspaper fails to qualify regardless of readership. Attendance by three notable people does not convince me that a first-year convention with only 270 attendees automatically inherits notability. Many local industry gatherings have far higher attendance without being appropriate for an encyclopedia article.
  Unless other evidence can be presented of significant coverage by multiple independent, non-trivial and reliable sources, I must recommend deletion but without prejudice against recreation several years from now if/when the convention has achieved the true and sustained notability that would make it appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• I see both arguments but agree mostly with Rossami. On the other hand, I would rather see an article on a tiny fan-run con than separate articles on each different evolutionary stage of each different Digimon character. My mind says delete but my heart says keep. If the Digimon stay, Llamacon stays. Keep, Thatcher131 01:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Current consensus at the Digimon project is to merge the evolutionary stages, as soon as they can agree on a structure for doing so. (They want to merge, but haven't decided how.) Just saying. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: I agree wholeheartedly with Rossami. Almost to the point of not having anything to add to it. It seems that badlydrawnjeff's only two arguments are the presence of three people with Wikipedia pages and coverage by one (1) local newspaper (I even did a Google News and LexisNexis search for it and didn't find anything other than the Eagle article). Neither of these points have any evidence in the form of examples from other articles, and they have weak interpretation-based evidence in Wikipedia policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulIsNotDead (talk • contribs)
  • To be fair, I don't care if they have WP pages or not, I'm simply more concerned with notable groups, people, and events being represented on Wikipedia. Any disagreements w/Rossami and I boil down to how best to judge the notability here. Notable people + press coverage is enough for some, not for others. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, exactly. And to prove that three "notable" people plus coverage in one local newspaper means notability, I'd like some proof. Ideally, I'd like some proof in other WP pages. Policies would work too, but all you have given is interpretation of policies, which Rossami has disproved. -PaulIsNotDead 14:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Rossami hasn't "disproved" anything, (s?)he's merely given his opinion that WP:CORP is the better guideline in place of a situation lacking one, and I've given my opinion in disagreement. Events where notable people are guests and thusly recieve press coverage pass muster for me, they don't have to pass muster for you. Reasonable people can disagree, especially on issues such as this that are not clear cut. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Thatcher: two wrongs don't make a right! I say delete because there's really nothing to say about this single convention. After a second one, Llamacon would be about a series of conventions, and then I think it would be fine. I disagree with Rossami, though: WP:CORP may be more applicable than WP:BIO, but neither is right. I think WP:V is the ultimate guide here... and there just isn't much to say about Llamacon. Mangojuice 15:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Re-delete per original AFD vote. If and when it becomes a regular occurrence, like GenCon or Origins (although it need not be as big), then recreation is in order. Stifle 16:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per previous AfD. There is no way of telling whether this is a genuinely significant convention or a flash in the pan untiol we've seen how it fares in future years. There is no deadline to meet here. Just zis Guy you know? 17:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG and Rossami. --kingboyk 17:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't agree that either WP:BIO or WP:CORP are properly applicable. I do agree that encyclopedic notability of this particular topic is a judgment call. I don't see that the presence of the article is clearly violating policy, causing any trouble, setting a bad precedent, serving as an obnoxious spamvertisement, or being confusing. -ikkyu2 (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Ikkyu2 insofar as I am uncomfortable applying either guideline in this case: these are "guidelines" for a reason, with an expectation that certain articles will fall in liminal areas, as this example does. Without reference to strict set criteria, my own judgment demands first evidence of durability. In very few instances would a first-year gathering meet encyclopedic standards; to be notable, it must prove itself able to endure in most cases. While there are exceptions (eg. Woodstock), this case doesn't seem to me to merit such status. Hence, wait till next year's event, at least. Xoloz 17:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• I'm having a hard time seeing how a first year 270 person convention is notable enough. Notability may be transitive, I guess, but it goes down by some factor (80%? only one fifth the notability comes over... pick your own numbers and work it for yourself...) every time you transition, so 3 barely notable artists only gets you 60% (3*20% if only 1/5 came over) of the notability you need, if you see what I'm saying... Delete with regret. (the much bigger con 2BeContinued does not, near as I can tell, have an article, for example and it is a multiyear con with many much more notable guests) Maybe next year for this one? ++Lar: t/c 17:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with no regret :) per Ikkyu2. Turnstep 19:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above arguments. Would not object if it were recreated sometime in the future with a little more history marching along behind it. --Syrthiss 22:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; not seeing notability. joturner 22:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Deeply pained as I am to say so, delete. Yes, two of my three favorite webcomics are represented here, lacking only Stoopid pigeon to make the trifecta, but per all the above this isn't notable yet. Dammit. - brenneman^{L} 01:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Badlydrawnjeff and to ease the pain of the user above and the contributor(s) to this article. -- JJay 12:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Being attended by a couple of notable people isn't enough to make a convention notable. Every weekend there are a dozen sports-card shows across the country attended by multiple notable athletes, and nobody would reasonably suggest we have a page for each of these. I personally think the "hundred-year test" is too restrictive, but unless something groundbreaking occurred at this con (the notable people doing something notable), I don't think it passes a ten year test. --djrobgordon 17:44, 21 March 2006 (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.