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 no consensus. One two three... 03:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this result was amended to delete with the consent of User:One at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_26#Cal_Con. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Con[edit]

Cal Con (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Aside from the promotional tone (which can be fixed), and the potential copyright violation (which would also be fixed by a rewrite) in the first two paragraphs, text originating from the program guide, my GNews search of:

Which leads me to believe that the convention does not pass general notability guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gaming forums, blogs, Facebook pages etc do not usually qualify under the reliable sources guidelines as they are all user generated content. For a convention to be notable by Wikipedia standards (in my opinion at least) there should be at least minimal coverage in local papers, such as the Calgary Sun or Calgary Herald, but nothing came up, not even behind a paywall. --kelapstick (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree there is only a weak case for this article. My only point was that I don't expect the Sun or Herald to cover this event, no matter how significant it is. It's more likely to be covered in, say, Fast Forward Weekly, who unfortunately for this article, don't cover it either. Hairhorn (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that the article is basic at the moment obviously and I only had time to cut/paste something quick. The reason for the article was that there are several new board, card, and role-playing games set to be released at the convention over next year and beyond. Jgbaxter (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide specific cites for this coverage? -- Whpq (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The newspaper obviously Calgary, the radio stations are the Calgary market (not sure how far they extend out). The posters and flyers are primarily Western Canada; BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, though Games Workshop stores caried posters east. Jgbaxter (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Magazines have also promoted the convention, noteably Dragon magazine, and the Canadian Wargamers Journal (defunct). Jgbaxter (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I was surprised when I didn't find anything in the Sun or Herald, if the convention has been around since 1988 I would have expected to find at least one article at a minimum mentioning it, but there was nothing. Being the largest games convention in Western Canada may be enough to establish its notability, but again I didn't even find anything that mentioned the convention. At all. Also if you are in the Sun, and on Radio stations is that coverage of the event or advertising of the event, because they are two different things, coverage of the event can be used to establish notability, however advertising of the event can not.--kelapstick (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CalCon hasn't paid for advertising as of yet. Jgbaxter (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer the question though, even free advertising would not qualify. Regardless, any coverage has to be verifiable.--kelapstick (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that searching the Calgary Sun here and here brings up no results.--kelapstick (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that sure comes out as rude and condecending, not elitest at all. Jgbaxter (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been gathering historical information from the convention, sure doesn't appear like some people really care about it. If I have time before there's a pre-emptive deletion I'll add it. As for copyfight violation- it appears with permission from the convention until I have 5 seconds in my 3 jobs to do something more to the article. ;) Jgbaxter (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not rude, condescending or elitist. It is Wikipedia policy. Also there is a process for using copyright material on Wikipedia, you saying that it is used with permission from the convention isn't enough. Keep in mind that even with permission from the convention to use the material it is still promotional and written in the first person, which is a tone that is not appropriate for Wikipedia, keep in mind this is an encyclopedia. Jgbaxter I suggest that you restart the article at User:Jgbaxter/Cal Con, but not just "copy and paste" from the program, write it using the proper tone and citing reliable sources, and using no original research. I would be more than happy to help you with this if you would like. Also keep in mind that deletion of the article does not prevent its recreation in the future.--kelapstick (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely disagree with your response to my comment, and further to that 'tone' is clear in the message. Wikipedia tries to be an amateur encyclopedia, sometimes it succeeds and sometimes it doesn't- mostly not. There are many tens of thousands of articles here that are much less relevant- and less noteworthy. I could waste my time further but it's obvious it's a pointless exercise. It's laughable to think that wikipedia is a promotional avenue for anything, too much pomposity if you ask me. Kelapstick thanks for whatever help you may have offered. Jgbaxter (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2009 (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.
Category