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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Midwest

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Supposedly improved re-creation Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Wikipedia:Recreation_of_previously_deleted_pages, new article has improved notability by citing more news coverage of the event, including ABC News, WGN, the Daily Herald, Anime News, Network, The Filipino American Community Builder, and WBEZ. Convention is of a notable size and covered by several reliable sources. Kopf1988 (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a copy of the ABC News Clip (repeated on 7, 8, 9am, and 10pm segments). Kopf1988 (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

neutral I was going to !vote delete, but was swayed by the dailyherald which seems in depth and reliable (but currently singular). Stuartyeates (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Given the strength of the Herald piece, I'm willing to round the arguable ABC video source, the ABC7 text source, and the remaining sources up to GNG. Note that the extensive guest lists in the table need to be pruned pretty significantly per WP:NLIST. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Im a bit confused by this deletion, there is nothing against re-creating an article that has been previously deleted as long as it has improved enough to pass things such as WP:GNG. From the looks of it, more sources have been found solving what had been the original issues in the first AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it is policy, or at least is suggested as such in the essay at Wikipedia:Recreation_of_previously_deleted_pages. Kopf1988 (talk) 07:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually nothin in thst essay says that deleted pages can't be recreated. The closest thing to that is that people should be careful in addressing the reasons that the page was deleted before recreating it but never that it's not allowed. If that were the case every deleted article would have been protected. In fact a change in the notability of the subject ( which has been argued to be the case here) is one of the specific cases where the essay says that recreation is acceptable.--67.68.162.111 (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is an essay which is saying that if you do re-create an article that was deleted and it has not been improved it will likely be re-nominated, there is no policy against re-creation of deleted articles though. WP:SALT is policy however but usually applies to vandalism created pages. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that what happened is that when I tagged the article for a histmerge, User:Anthony Appleyard did the histmerge and saw that this was a relatively borderline case and nominated it for AfD. This is exactly the right thing for him to do as an admin---to seek a consensus when he notices something in his admin duties that may not be right. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, quite a few reliable sources are cited in the article actually. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 10:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but weak and sourcing problems This article just barely meets notability so I am for keeping it, but has lots of sourcing issues in my opinion.

Possible Notability (Geek Girl Chicago (Chicago Tribune))
Reliable blurbs with little actual coverage (ABC News 2014)
Dead or Missing Sources so review of content is not possible (WGN, ABC News 2013, The Filipino American Community Builder, WBEZ)
Press Releases or Guest Announcement pieces (Chicago Tribune, All Anime News Network)
Not notable/questionable in these circumstances/does not specifically cover the convention (Screw Attack, Figure.FM, The Pullbox, WeirdReview, Kotaku, Escapist Magazine)
Primary source content

I have no problem with WP:GOODFAITH, but some WP:BOLD editing might be needed to get this article into a cleaner and more acceptable form. Esw01407 (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2014 (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.