262:- this, however, does not actually confer notability on the convention, it just verifies that it happened. Were the con reports written by journalists or were they fan submissions? There is a difference here, one very important to the future of this article. If the "features" you mention are not online, do you have access to the magazine to offer a scan for review?
297:
had actual articles written in their print editions (available "at fine newsstands everywhere") about the convention that were written by regular staff writers (not fans). I've seen them, but unfortunately I do not have the issues myself so I am unable to provide the sources or scan them. However,
540:
Long running and well known anime convention; media citations would be easier to find through Google if there weren't discussions about the con on hundreds of forums, but I'm sure they exist somewhere. Also, ANN is one of the most credible sources there is in terms of anime related news and topics.
194:
Which is why I also consulted LexisNexis, which catalogs newpapers, journals, magazines, and even some TV news broadcasts from all over the globe. The absolute lack of returns there speaks of a serious lack of mainstream press reporting on the event, which led to my conclusion that there was a lack
122:
brings back only 294 unique of about 389 external hits, nearly all blogs, directories, or simple listings. No legitimate news mentions found - LexisNexis search also returns zero news stories from entire archive. Based on the lack of reliable sources, coupled with the fact that large sections read
348:
types of articles are to verify information and give attribution to some of the statements. These statements are hardly controversial anyway, and don't even need those refs. You MAY be able to equate one or two of the sources to blogs, but is considered a reliable and attributable source in this
415:
Because I don't want to incorrectly interpret your spelling/grammar. As for your argument, not all encyclopedia entries start out perfect. Knowledge grows because of that. One person makes an article with just one viewpoint. Someone else adds a second viewpoint. Third person cleans it up, fixing
550:
I have mixed feelings about this. This is one of the older anime conventions. But the question becomes, does age confer notability? Also, does the fact that this is the first and only convention in Iowa confer notability and can such a claim be
163:
Please keep your accusations of bad faith to yourself, as they are unfounded. The "Children of the Con" and "Fan's View" articles are essentially blog entries, which according to
Knowledge standards, are not reliable sources, as you can read
528:- while I've been going to conventions for over 20 years and would normally be inclined to keep, the lack of multiple independent reliable sources (especially the lack of local media sources) over 10 years leads me to vote against them.
385:
Zedco, what's your native language?? Also have you noticed that the article is underconstruction? Meaning that it is in the process of being better written. We/I have been working to make it an extremely great article.
119:
318:
can be found. The nom is correct in pointing out that none of the references in the article are reliable sources, they're all blogs and forums and such; there's no way to substantiate any of the claims made here. —
117:
Although an editor claims notability, I can find no evidence of this, other than the fact that the event actually does happen. Nearly all "references" provided are first-party information, press releases, or blogs.
559:, which is more of a picture diary then an actual review, is that anyone can publish reviews on the web, but it is entirely different to get that review published in something with editorial control, like
145:
Even though I hate to do it, I have to accuse you of bad faith here... Perhaps because of the other two AfDs we've participated in. The
Children of The Con article, and the several Fan's View articles are
258:
In this case, some citations would help - just saying it's so doesn't cut the mustard. I've found references to the con on the *forums* at
Animerica, and references to *listings* of con reports in
402:
whats my native lanuage got to do with it? anyawys article gets deleted, you go away and complete it properly, then come bak and put it up properly like you should have done in the first place.--
555:
to a reliable source? As far as reliable sources, only the ANN article would be considered towards notable. AnimeCons.com is a directory listing and cannot confer notability. The problem with
487:. If the people involved think they can reference it better, then let them try. However, if there's no new references other than fan testimonies etc, it should definately be deleted. --
208:
Everyone keep the personal attacks out of this -- especially folks who have been warned on this before, per their own discussion pages. Ad hominem has no place here in
Knowledge. --
110:
181:
You can not equate those FansView to a blog. The editor has reviewed dozens of Anime
Conventions, and is a pretty reliable source. Moreover, have you ever read,
185:... I think you have. Maybe they weren't in bad faith... but I cant say much else without getting into personal attacks which I will not do any further.
52:
235:- AnimeIowa is one of the longest running and well known anime conventions in the United States. It has been featured in numerous (print) issues of
247:. There is absolutely no question in my mind that AnimeIowa is notable and I'm very surprised it would even be considered for deletion. --
49:
448:, and clean up, though I was amused to have seen this nominated as a GA candidate prior to appearing on AfD. (Perhaps a BIT premature?) --
369:
tho it looks real interesting. article would have to be better done and more info with bettter refs etc. then ok may change me mind --
516:
217:
416:
simple mistakes. Fourth person makes sure all details and viewpoints are covered, and suddenly we have a good encyclopedia entry.
328:
17:
507:. Certainly, local newspapers should have coverage of this event, as well as the sources mentioned by Patrick above. --
457:
83:
78:
87:
182:
70:
599:
36:
271:
Wouldn't a whole bunch of people talking about it, plus the addition of other sources only bolster its claim of
598:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
569:, unless I missed it or it was in an issue I don't have, I never came across one while I was going through my
570:
123:
like an advertisement, I cannot agree that the convention is notable enough for inclusion, and recommend
529:
512:
213:
542:
495:
236:
584:
532:
520:
499:
475:
462:
440:
420:
406:
390:
373:
357:
332:
302:
279:
266:
251:
221:
199:
189:
176:
154:
131:
580:
454:
324:
263:
196:
173:
169:
128:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
508:
209:
488:
437:
299:
248:
436:. Clean up requirement is no reason to delete it, we just need some cites and stuff. --
350:
74:
575:
552:
472:
417:
387:
354:
315:
276:
186:
151:
450:
320:
165:
104:
349:
area. The Anime News
Network article is a NEWS ARTICLE about the convention. See
561:
244:
403:
370:
275:? It might not, but regardless there are enough sources in this article Mike.
240:
66:
58:
592:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
168:. You disagree with my reasons, I get that - I suggest you read
172:, as I believe this most definitely applies in your case.
100:
96:
92:
298:
if someone could dig those up, it would be great. --
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
602:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
183:Arguments to avoid in a deleltion discussion
7:
316:multiple reliable published sources
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
50:Can't sleep, clown will eat me
1:
471:Maybe just a tiny bit, lol.
273:being worthy of being noted
619:
585:20:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
533:15:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
521:17:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
500:05:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
476:23:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
463:05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
441:22:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
421:22:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
407:09:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
391:19:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
374:10:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
358:19:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
333:05:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
303:19:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
280:04:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
267:04:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
252:04:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
222:17:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
200:07:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
190:04:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
177:04:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
155:04:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
132:04:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
53:05:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
150:to establish notability.
595:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
353:for even MORE sources.
141:Keep - Nom in Bad Faith
48:, defaulting to keep.
565:. As for articles in
293:, and (I'm 99% sure)
195:of reliable sources.
120:Google search on name
573:a few weeks back. --
287:Protoculture Addicts
260:Protoculture Addicts
237:Protoculture Addicts
170:WP:ILIKEIT#I_like_it
142:
505:Keep and clean up
492:
434:Keep and clean up
140:
610:
597:
530:TheRealFennShysa
490:
461:
148:more than enough
108:
90:
34:
618:
617:
613:
612:
611:
609:
608:
607:
606:
600:deletion review
593:
543:Samurai Drifter
460:
449:
346:forums and such
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
616:
614:
605:
604:
588:
587:
545:
535:
523:
502:
481:
480:
479:
478:
466:
465:
453:
443:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
410:
409:
394:
393:
377:
376:
363:
362:
361:
360:
351:Talk:AnimeIowa
336:
335:
308:
307:
306:
305:
283:
282:
255:
254:
229:
228:
227:
226:
225:
224:
206:
205:
204:
203:
202:
158:
157:
115:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
615:
603:
601:
596:
590:
589:
586:
582:
578:
577:
572:
568:
564:
563:
558:
554:
549:
546:
544:
539:
536:
534:
531:
527:
524:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
503:
501:
497:
493:
486:
483:
482:
477:
474:
470:
469:
468:
467:
464:
459:
456:
452:
447:
444:
442:
439:
435:
432:
431:
422:
419:
414:
413:
412:
411:
408:
405:
401:
398:
397:
396:
395:
392:
389:
384:
381:
380:
379:
378:
375:
372:
368:
365:
364:
359:
356:
352:
347:
343:
340:
339:
338:
337:
334:
330:
326:
322:
317:
313:
310:
309:
304:
301:
296:
292:
288:
285:
284:
281:
278:
274:
270:
269:
268:
265:
261:
257:
256:
253:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
231:
230:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
201:
198:
193:
192:
191:
188:
184:
180:
179:
178:
175:
171:
167:
162:
161:
160:
159:
156:
153:
149:
144:
138:
137:
136:
135:
134:
133:
130:
126:
121:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
594:
591:
574:
566:
560:
557:A Fan's View
556:
547:
537:
525:
504:
484:
445:
433:
399:
382:
366:
345:
341:
311:
294:
290:
286:
272:
264:MikeWazowski
259:
232:
197:MikeWazowski
174:MikeWazowski
147:
139:
129:MikeWazowski
124:
116:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
571:back issues
567:Newtype USA
562:Newtype USA
295:Newtype USA
245:Newtype USA
239:as well as
233:Strong Keep
143:Speedy Keep
553:attributed
491:ヴィルヴェルヴィント
489:Wirbelwind
438:Dennisthe2
485:Weak keep
344:The only
291:Animerica
241:Animerica
67:AnimeIowa
59:AnimeIowa
517:contribs
473:Kopf1988
418:Kopf1988
388:Kopf1988
383:Question
355:Kopf1988
300:PatrickD
277:Kopf1988
249:PatrickD
218:contribs
187:Kopf1988
152:Kopf1988
111:View log
548:Comment
451:RoninBK
342:Comment
321:Krimpet
314:unless
243:and/or
84:protect
79:history
526:Delete
367:Delete
329:review
312:Delete
125:Delete
88:delete
576:Farix
404:Zedco
400:what?
371:Zedco
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
581:Talk
538:Keep
519:^_^
513:talk
509:Miwa
496:talk
446:Keep
325:talk
220:^_^
214:talk
210:Miwa
166:here
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
541:--
109:– (
583:)
515:*
511:*
498:)
331:)
289:,
216:*
212:*
127:.
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
579:(
494:(
458:C
455:T
327:/
323:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.