Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Readercon

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 keep, per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 01:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Readercon

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Non-notable convention. There is nothing in the article that establishes why this convention is important or what makes it stands out from all the others. Wikipedia is not a Directory and the article serves primarily to promote the subject «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as nominator is mass-nominating a long list of science fiction conventions with the same cookie-cutter rationale, not grounded in facts or policy, without regard to content or sourcing (plus List of science fiction conventions), apparently as a result of this discussion. Notability is not a competition to "stand out from all the others". - Dravecky (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My same what now? You nominated 13 articles for deletion in 19 minutes so while I'll assume in good faith that you thoroughly investigated each article, searched for sources, and worked to improve the article, as per WP:BEFORE, at less than 2 minutes per article nominated I do have to question how thorough any research might have been. It appears you're making a WP:POINT. - Dravecky (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not think it is possible the nominator might have researched all the articles first, and having done so and decided which ones appeared notable and which did not, only then filed the AfD requests? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the absence of tagging or edits to the article by the nominator, and given his statements in this and other discussions, I have strong doubts that WP:BEFORE was followed to any degree. - Dravecky (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes, looking at things a little more, I doubt my suggested scenario is correct -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - this is absurd!!!! ReaderCon is one of the most distinctive science fiction conventions on the planet, with a emphasis on science fiction as a literary genre that has given it a global reputation. I'm finding it hard to assume good faith when I see some of the conventions that this nominator has hammered away at. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know anything about sci-fi fandom, but it doesn't take long to see that Readercon is most definitely notable -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - see http://techland.time.com/2009/07/13/some-important-thingspeople-that-i-sawmetlearnedheard-about-at-readercon/ for an example of possible sourcing. Seems clear from that that it's well-established and notable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.locusmag.com/2002/Reviews/VanderMeer07.html might also be useful.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Readercon is a small, but very influential convention, drawing authors, editors, and publishers disproportionate to its size due to its focus. Shsilver (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep covered in independent sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article subject has received extensive coverage in multiple reliable sources. It passes the notability requirements easily. --NellieBly (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The event is long standing and is global wide known, ~~it goes from one country to other~~, several books about it or from it have been published, several scientifics article as well. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eduemoni, you seem to have Readercon confused with a different convention. Readerson does not move "from one country to another," but stays in Burlington, MA. Not sure about the suggested documentation you refer to, either. Shsilver (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, because I've made a preliminary research about the subject, and I came across the ReaderCon official website phrase "across the U.S., and from Canada, the U.K., and occasionally even Australia and Japan"', so I made a short bias, but after I posted my vote I correctly read the site and didn't fixed my vote. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 00:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems plenty notable; Google books in particular turns up a large number of sources. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/snow keep. One of the most prominent and widely-covered events of its type. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, per arguments mentioned above. This is one of the most important of the literary science fiction cons, with an international reputation. /Julle (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the part where it states with the goal of focusing exclusively on science fiction in the written form does a rather good job at establishing what makes it stand out from the other conventions. Milkfish (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not a terribly-strong keep but not a week keep either, somewhere in between. It has longevity, it appears to be stable as such events go, and it has coverage by multiple third-party sources - the Time ref above may have pushed me over the edge. Arguments against inclusion: It appears to be fairly small in attendance. I've said elsewhere that we need to establish a threshold on notability of cons - what differentiates a truly notable event from a couple of hundred people in a meeting room down at the local Marriott. Alas, this was held at a local Marriott, and the attendance number isn't included. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seriously Readercon? If this con isn't notable, then I guess none of them are. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:53, 6 April 2011 (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.