Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futurecon - Wikipedia
- 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. this missed being closed, but consensus is clear that there are no reliable sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Futurecon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Strong delete. First annual New Year's Eve party. Not notable. No references/reliable sources. Promotional in nature. Deepsix66 (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Deepsix66[reply]
- Strong delete. I'm not seeing any coverage in reliable sources—which is not surprising for an inaugural event. —C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. It is culturally important to the growth of Toronto sci-fi convention scene, much like other new this year events like SFContario. Also note that given his update history, Deepsix66 seems to be using Wikipedia for WP:BATTLEGROUND. Edfan77 (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Edfan77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Strong keep. Related to a charity for epilepsy and promoted by notable Toronto media personalities. -- Hidoshi (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It seems as though the article is simply in-progress and this is a case of "Don't demolish the house while it's still being built" rather then a delete. Event features multiple celebrities, including Hugo and Nebula Award Winning author Robert Sawyer who are notable by Wikipedia's standards. Is also a benefit for Epilepsy Toronto and the Sunburst Awards. comment added by Drivenhome (talk •
- — Drivenhome (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I agree that it's in progress. However, there's only so far it can go if there aren't secondary sources covering the subject. I searched before I made my recommendation above; had I found sources, I'd have recommended to keep the article and improve it. However, since I didn't find sources, that's why I recommended deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The rules clearly state that in practice not everything need actually be attributed to a third party source. Exactly what part of the article are you challenging? Deepsix66 appears to be challenging the nature of the event which is a baseless accusation that doesn't hold up to scruitny and does not require second or third party sources to debunk. This is not a biography and the article is extremely straight forward and simple and makes no exaggerated claims that require third party sources to confirm. As for the notability of the event, I would argue that when notable figures are attending a public event and working with notable charities at the event for a notable cause it makes the event notable. Popularity is irrelevant. comment added by Drivenhome (talk •
- My concern is the notability of the event. Specifically, it does not meet the general notability guideline, which is the underpinning of all the specific notability guidelines (e.g., WP:ORG). With no sources cited, there is no evidence in the article that it is the subject of multiple reliable sources, so it fails the notability requirement as well as the verifiability requirement. —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The rules are not a hammer and every article is not a nail. Simply quoting rules does not mean they apply to the article. This is not a biography, it is not making statements of ANY KIND that require a third party source to justify. Its notability is self-evident as the figures at the event and organizing the event are notable within Wikipedia and by its rules. How are you challenging its notability? You're challenging its popularity, but that isn't what's being determined here and that counts as an overzealous delete under "obscurity". Just because you don't like something/don't know about something or don't appreciate something doesn't mean it's not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drivenhome (talk • contribs) 03:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern is the notability of the event. Specifically, it does not meet the general notability guideline, which is the underpinning of all the specific notability guidelines (e.g., WP:ORG). With no sources cited, there is no evidence in the article that it is the subject of multiple reliable sources, so it fails the notability requirement as well as the verifiability requirement. —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The rules clearly state that in practice not everything need actually be attributed to a third party source. Exactly what part of the article are you challenging? Deepsix66 appears to be challenging the nature of the event which is a baseless accusation that doesn't hold up to scruitny and does not require second or third party sources to debunk. This is not a biography and the article is extremely straight forward and simple and makes no exaggerated claims that require third party sources to confirm. As for the notability of the event, I would argue that when notable figures are attending a public event and working with notable charities at the event for a notable cause it makes the event notable. Popularity is irrelevant. comment added by Drivenhome (talk •
- Comment I don't wish to get more involved in the continued Emily Schooley fiasco, but the editors voting keep must seek to show that this event meets the requirements of WP:GNG (please click and read that link thoroughly): has it received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? All other details are effectively irrelevant and will not carry much weight with the closing admin. Bigger digger (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read the rules exhaustively and I fully agree with the rules. However Deepsix66 has not challeneged any of the information that requires third party sources to verify. Simply stating that that the event is 'just a New Years Eve party' when notable figures and notable charities have already acknowledged their involvement on their official blogs and webpages is not a challenge to the validity of the event. It's ignorance. I have gone through the article, there are no exaggerated claims, there are no false claims, there are no hyperbolic statements in the article and there are no challenges to any of the claims in the article by anyone seeking a delete. As for the 'notability' of the event, having to confirm the notability of an event where notable figures are showing up to promote a notable charity for a notable cause via a third party source is not necessary. The notability of the event (whether it is POPULAR or not) is self-evident. comment added by Drivenhome (talk •
- Notability is not inherited (ie: if a notable person attends an event, that does not mean the event is now notable). Until there are reliable, third-party sources that confirm the event's notability, it does not belong here. If this year's event generates some substantial media coverage (from reliable sources), there may be a good case for notability in a few months, but as it stands the requirements are simply unfulfilled. Also for the record, the affiliation with Epilepsy Toronto is un-referenced and I was unable to find any mention on their website. What is the nature of the affiliation? Is Epilepsy Toronto an official sponsor of the event? If this is the case (and you're affiliated with FutureCon), you may want to ask them to release a press release announcing their sponsorship of the event, as it could potentially lead to some media coverage by reliable sources. Deepsix66 (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Deepsix66[reply]
- Actually notability can be inherited. In fact the majority of notable events do inherit their notability from notable figures. Again, you misinterpret the word "NOTABLE" for "POPULAR". The fact that an event is featuring notable figures and is being organized by notable personalities for a notable cause is enough to justify its notability and does not require third party sources to justify. WP:GNG does not apply to every single article. Again, this is not a biography. comment added by Drivenhome (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Why not work to improve the article rather than attack it right off the start? As this is an article I wrote, I will refrain from arguing or voting for it though I am sure my desired outcome is obvious (to have it kept and improved as more sources become available). However, I find it concerning that you are trolling my work - does this mean I will have to switch user names again to avoid having all my submissions put up for deletion? Bytemeh (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Drivenhome, the view that notability is not inherited is broadly accepted - see, for example, this section of the notability guideline for organizations. VQuakr (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. OK, very well, I change my vote to *Delete comment added by Drivenhome (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Actually notability can be inherited. In fact the majority of notable events do inherit their notability from notable figures. Again, you misinterpret the word "NOTABLE" for "POPULAR". The fact that an event is featuring notable figures and is being organized by notable personalities for a notable cause is enough to justify its notability and does not require third party sources to justify. WP:GNG does not apply to every single article. Again, this is not a biography. comment added by Drivenhome (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Notability is not inherited (ie: if a notable person attends an event, that does not mean the event is now notable). Until there are reliable, third-party sources that confirm the event's notability, it does not belong here. If this year's event generates some substantial media coverage (from reliable sources), there may be a good case for notability in a few months, but as it stands the requirements are simply unfulfilled. Also for the record, the affiliation with Epilepsy Toronto is un-referenced and I was unable to find any mention on their website. What is the nature of the affiliation? Is Epilepsy Toronto an official sponsor of the event? If this is the case (and you're affiliated with FutureCon), you may want to ask them to release a press release announcing their sponsorship of the event, as it could potentially lead to some media coverage by reliable sources. Deepsix66 (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Deepsix66[reply]
- I have read the rules exhaustively and I fully agree with the rules. However Deepsix66 has not challeneged any of the information that requires third party sources to verify. Simply stating that that the event is 'just a New Years Eve party' when notable figures and notable charities have already acknowledged their involvement on their official blogs and webpages is not a challenge to the validity of the event. It's ignorance. I have gone through the article, there are no exaggerated claims, there are no false claims, there are no hyperbolic statements in the article and there are no challenges to any of the claims in the article by anyone seeking a delete. As for the 'notability' of the event, having to confirm the notability of an event where notable figures are showing up to promote a notable charity for a notable cause via a third party source is not necessary. The notability of the event (whether it is POPULAR or not) is self-evident. comment added by Drivenhome (talk •
- Delete I do not see coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources for this topic. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of reliable sources, which frankly isn't surprising considering this hasn't even happened yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with storm and fire: This should be a slam dunk. A one-night SF relaxicon that hasn't happened yet, sourced solely through its own web page and Twitter feeds? This isn't a "convention." It's a (projected) New Year's Eve party. Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:GNG and probably most any other policy you can imagine. Ravenswing 18:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Once it has happened it may achieve notability. If it becomes an annual event, it may achieve notability. It isn't there yet. Shsilver (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Ravenswing. Edward321 (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, it's a future event and has had very little coverage, even in local media. PKT(alk) 18:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.