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. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of attendance figures at anime conventions[edit]

List of attendance figures at anime conventions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

List is extremely wide in scope as there are thousands of anime conventions. Also it mentions prices so violates WP:NOPRICES . Also whats the point of this list when people can click on the articles anyway for info. Uneccessary--Sinjanthu (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.--Sinjanthu (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This list was not listed on the anime and manga deletion sorting page (despite the above statement). I've listed it there now. Calathan (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep very bad faith nomination. The article creator removed the prices but you added it back then nominated, furthermroe you have given pathetic reason to delete just like all the other articles you nominated for deletion--Gokul.gk7 (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep I removed prices, and before adding it back I wanted a discussion in talk page about whether its sutiable, as I believe attendance fee affects attendance so keeping it there is useful. So does not violate WP:NOPRICES. Also you should be banned from wikipedia, you added back the prices so that you could use it as an excuse, that is just wrong. This article is useful and has a variety of references. It also does not violate WP:RAWDATA because contains sufficient explanatory text, more text can easily be added, and this list can be split by country and genre. Each section can have more text. Similar type of articles already exist- List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues --Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• - Note: I reverted this nominators revert of the attendance fee i added. I wont add attendance fee until their is consensus. So WP:NOPRICES is invalid as there is no fees/prices there--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: prices can be included if justified and sourced. They are sourced, so there would need to be a justification such as a reason why looking at historical prices is encyclopedic in this context. I think more explanatory text is needed otherwise most readers who come across this list won't see the point of it. Also, everyone should keep a cool head. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This discussion seems to have been left off the log page for today's AFD discussions. I've added it there now. Sinjanthu, please try to follow all the steps at WP:AFDHOW when nominating an article for deletion. Calathan (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP bad faith nomination, Sinjanthu apparently wants this deleted because the info on this article some of it can be found in the wiki articles of the conventions themselves. Terrible reason to delete, besides most lists are like that.--Bmshafiul (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do not see any potential for growth here other than what is already in the anime convention articles, the list also describes more than just attendance figures so it is also trying to be more than just one thing at once something that is going into the convention articles and things that are already listed at List of anime conventions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rework - I've offered my opinions about this list before, and one of the most glaring issues was the lack of comprehensiveness. The fact that only the even-numbered years are given is certainly an issue (are odd-numbered years not important?), and the fact that some conventions started earlier than 1998, but they're earlier figures except for their first are not given. There's also the issue with WP:BIAS, as most of the list is composed of USA conventions. Other already established lists, such as List of sports attendance figures don't list every single year, but only the most recent; why should this list be any different? Also, assuming this list continues to be updated every other year, it'll eventually have so many columns that it won't be viable to keep in one table. It's barely viable now; what happens in 2020, assuming anyone is still around that even cares to update it.--十八 21:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in 2014, 1998 column will dissapear and 2014 will be added, in 2016, the 2000 column will dissapear and 2016 will be added, thats what I think is best to do. feel free to expand it and add conventions from other countries.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you'd make it even less comprehensive in regard to the past? Clearly historical significance has no meaning on this list, or comprehensiveness at that. Is there a need to compare anime conventions by their attendance figures? Is anyone else interested in this topic? I don't see the bias being corrected without some concerted effort. Obviously, that isn't grounds for deletion, just that the article is ripe with flaws.--十八 21:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list has already been a work in progress and still has not made the cut, some of the conventions listed do not even have attendance figures listed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Way to pick out small error. I haven't seen a single convention on that list that doesn't have attendance. If you know some, please name 2. --Arifulbk (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep have to agree with misconceptions 2, this article should stay, there are heaps of similar articles like this, plus this article is actually very interesting, useful, easy to understand and well referenced. Knowledgekid87 claims this data is already available in the List of anime conventions, I beg to differ. This article is by far more useful than the List of anime conventions article and I don’t see attendance figures anywhere on that article. Add back those prices, they are justified.
  • You forgot to sign--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: regarding prices you can give your opinion here on whether it should be added back: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_attendance_figures_at_anime_conventions --Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete On top of having content that's listed on the wiki pages themselves, lists many cons that do not meet notability on Wikipedia, and has several primary source issues. Most of this attendance information can be better addressed on the individual pages, including more reliable sourcing. Esw01407 (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats how most lists are, they summarise data from wikipages--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • List of anime conventions only lists conventions that meet the notability standards of this project and wikipeida. All those other entries here at a minimum should be deleted as they don't even have enough notable sources to meet the standard of having a Wikipedia article. Esw01407 (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep : Price should also be added back as it can be used to calculate revenue for the corresponding year by multiplying price X attendance. Which adds another dimension to this article. Totally useful and reliable article, well referenced. I see no reason to delete unless am missing something here...--Lonelydream (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I agree with Misconceptions2 & Lonelydream --Example - TALK 23:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bad faith actions taint the nomination beyond repair. Consider someone else re-nominating in six months if concerns persist. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Perfectly valid comparison list, meeting all requirements for a list article to exist. Dream Focus 08:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This seems like very specific information. Could this content be used on a page about attendance at anime conventions? It seems to me that would be a very good solution, since it covers a real topic and avoids having an article of unclear notability. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 02:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Could this content be used on a page about attendance at anime conventions?"...this is so far the only page on wikipeda about "attendance at anime conventions?"--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most individual conventions list this information already, and in much greater detail, making it highly redundant. So in actuality, there are many pages about convention attendance already. Esw01407 (talk)

What I mean is: could an article be developed that covers this topic? Are there analysis of attendance figures? Are there papers written about this? If so, the table could be useful for an article covering that analysis. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 17:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fan cruft. Not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep encyclopedic and valid list. There are already several articles like it as mentioned by m2 see here: List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues. If prices were to be brought back then it would also be useful as would contain revenue and cost info--Mohsinmallik (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with Dream Focus and "Bad faith actions taint the nomination beyond repair. Consider someone else re-nominating in six months if concerns persist", this--Acmel48 (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perfectly valid list that is adequately referenced--Bnseagreen (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pet Jclemens, and Misconceptions2's arguement. Article meets all criteria to be inc. in wiki--Kenjots (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2013 (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.