Talk:No Brand Con

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve and expand anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
CON This article is supported by the Conventions work group.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
If you give this article a rating or change a previous rating, please leave a short summary in the comments to explain the rating and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-02-05. The result of the discussion was Keep.

[edit] Possible sources

[edit] Original Research Issue

Being a member of this group, I know that No Brand Con planning staff are notorious for not distributing press releases. As a result, secondary, verifiable sources are few and far between. Even reliable sources, such as AnimeCons.com, are often fed by No Brand Con staff, backed up by information readily available on the website.

I believe the self-referencing sources that are used fall under the first exception for: WP:SELFPUB#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources. Due to their inherently self-referencing nature, NoBrandVerse specifics and other details are not published outside of the convention website, internal convention materials, or myriad video sources (sometimes available on YouTube and similar sites, where applicable).

I suppose what can fall under contention here is whether or not the inclusion of such details is relevant to an encyclopedia entry. I think the fact that No Brand Con has a continuous, annual storyline is academically interesting, and can be used to compare against otehr conventions. But, again, the proper details can only be found in con-referenced materials, as already (properly) cited. SeanOrange 20:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't dispute that No Brand Con itself is worthy of a Wikipedia article, I don't believe that the NoBrandVerse information should be taking up so much of the article. Unless there are third-party sources for this information, it seems to go against WP:RS. The only sources listed for that section are No Brand Con itself...which is essentially a self-published source. Perhaps marking this as "original research" isn't the most appropriate choice of tags, but I felt that it qualified considering that it was all either unsourced or referring to NBC's own site. --PatrickD 23:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
That's what I thought you were getting at. I think it should suffice to say that the con has storylines and has characters, and leave it at that, yes? That's what I get for building on what came before and getting carried away, I guess... hahaha ~ SeanOrange 00:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Brand Verse

I've deleted the entire No Brand Verse as it was based entirely on primary sources and contained a great deal of original research as well. The section was also undue weight as it appeared that was the only thing significant the convention. However, this article should be about the convention and its history and development and not about the No Brand Verse. --Farix (Talk) 18:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)