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. Per WP:BIG, having a lot of attendants is not a reason for keeping, and having too few is also not a reason for deletion. What matters here is the amount of significant coverage of the reliable sources. The "keep" !voters cite multiple sources, while the "delete" !voters believe that they are too WP:LOCAL. Overall, neither side has made a sufficiently convincing argument to decide the debate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MystiCon[edit]

MystiCon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local science fiction convention. It apparently was split off from another local convention because of some dispute, but the original convention is not notable enough to have an article, and neither is this one. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:55, 3 April 2011

Delete Next to useless. May as well have local restaurants publish their menus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.198.253 (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the earth having an entry of "Mostly Harmless" in some encyclopedia or another... (UTC)

Note. From the number of edits from infrequent / unregistered / new editors it would appear that there has been offsite canvassing taking place in support of keeping this article. Bongomatic 14:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I know when I first created the page, I was having issue trying to create a log in, so continued to edit until WP finally allowed me to create the log in. Not sure if that is what you are referring to or not, because you could check the IP I believe, but according to WP's guidelines, it's not an offense to edit without a log in. coffee is the real drink of the gods! (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. A webcomic author complained in a blog post about the fact that this article had been marked for deletion, and mentioned a few other articles that had been deleted before enough time had been allowed for them to garner more information and references. One of the articles mentioned was the article for the author's own webcomic, which this unregistered editor believes has enough of a following to deem appropriate its own article, considering what other webcomic articles exist without dispute, but that is beside the point of this page. The author expressed that he was upset with this article's marking for deletion, but did not tell his readers to come and fight that cause; such was their own doing. However, this turn of events raises the question of what criteria makes a subject article-worthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.224.187 (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit to above reply. Upon further reading, it has been clarified that some of the articles the webcomic author pointed out were marked for deletion (not deleted, as previously believed) shortly after their creation, later received enough information and sources to remove the deletion marking and the validity and necessity of the articles has not been questioned since. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.224.187 (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cekesner2 responds: I apologize if I have acted in violation of any of WikiPedia's policies in responding to this request to have the MystiCon page deleted. I would like to state for the record that in my private message to Realkyhick I asked this user to cease their attempts at having the MystiCon page deleted or that I would, in accordance with WikiPedia's dispute resolution procedures, submit this discussion to their editorial board for consideration. Aside from that request, I never "threatened" or "accused" Realkyhick of anything in my private message to that user. If the MystiCon page is deleted than you must, in all fairness, delete all the pages on this WikiPedia list as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_science_fiction_conventions . And if this little MystiCon page is violating WikiPedia's "promotional" policies, than the editors of this web site are going to be very busy deleting all the Wiki pages for science fiction conventions, authors, rock bands, politicians, world leaders, ad infinitum. I think the MystiCon webmaster fulfilled WikiPedia's policy stated here in regards to the MystiCon WikiPedia site: Advertising. All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. I must admit that I am new to WikiPedia and have much to learn. Having said that, I take great umbrage and exception at Realkyhick's suggestion that I be "blocked" from WikiPedia. Why? Because I challenged this user's single-minded desire to have the MystiCon page deleted from WikiPedia? And while I am responsible for promoting MystiCon, I never once stated that the article that MystiCon's webmaster created for WikiPedia was for "promotional purposes". Furthermore, I do not nor did I claim any "ownership" of the MystiCon WikiPedia page. The MystiCon webmaster created that page and it is similar in content to the many other science fiction convention pages one can find on WikiPedia. Thank you and again I apologize for being a newbie. --Cekesner2 (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Cekesner2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Update: Make this a speedy delete instead. An official with the convention, through his post below and on my user page, that the article is intended to promote the convention. He has also tried to claim ownership, against this policy. My suspicions about spam and this article are now confirmed for all to see. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The official person that responded to your very... intense desire to delete this page is not the one that created it. Just because he or she stepped in should not mean that the page should be automatically deleted. I find it very disturbing that you are this driven to delete a page but haven't followed through with the same intent on other convention pages. Why are you so intent on deleting this one conventional page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smikefoley (talk • contribs) 01:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)coffee is the real drink of the gods! (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Smikefoley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This page popped up on new-page patrol shortly after it was created, and I happened to be the editor who first dealt with it. Luck of the draw, in other words. If there are other similar articles about sci-fi conventions which you feel may not meet Wikipedia standards, please list them and I will be glad to check them out. In other words, I bear no personal animosity toward this convention, nor you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate it but I was instructed to build onto the page, which I've been trying to do, but have been having to post replies on a number of places on this page to try and ask for a lowering of the angry tone going on. Please remember that this isn't the only page I'll be contributing to or creating, so I'd really like to be given the chance to continue my work. Unfortunately, no one is giving me a second to even breath before hurriedly posting again on the page and getting angry about something someone else has done. Could you please just separate the two and deal with them as different issues, and give me the time to work on the page without insisting on it's absolute and sudden destruction? It's hard, if not impossible, to keep trying to work on it when it's being torn down (before it's completed) and I can't save drafts, while this fast-paced post-post again-post a third time speedway is going on. I still don't understand why this convention page has been singled out and why this has turned into such a... don't even know the word for it, but do you not see my point? It's shocking that one page/thing is being held accountable because of another page/thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smikefoley (talk • contribs) 02:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)coffee is the real drink of the gods! (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Smikefoley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I can't speak as to the merits or motives over whomever "instructed" you to create this page, but the continuing effort to delete this page lies purely in the fact that it violates two Wikipedia policies: 1) it has been revealed to be promotion of an event, and promotion of anything is prohibited, a policy which is very actively policed; and 2) this event simply does not meet Wikipedia standards for notability. There is nothing personal about this. It is merely an enforcement of longstanding Wikipedia standards, and nothing more. An article about the competing show would likely face the same fate. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it doesn't. The page does not promote MystiCon. It talks of it's orgins, past and future - exactly as other convention pages on WP do. Let neutral editors deal with this; you're obviously too invested in this as someone that was agitated by someone else's remarks to you. You aren't reliable at this point to make a rational decision, because if you were, frankly, you would have stopped fighting with him/her a long time ago and went to see that what I'm saying is true: the page is set up like the other convention pages - and, hopefully, you would have moved on to something else. You really have me worried with the way you allow your personal anger guide you on how you do things on WP.coffee is the real drink of the gods! (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Smikefoley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • It appears that the vast majority of coverage, at least from reliable sources, comes from just one publication: The Roanoke Times. One other ref is from a blog, and the other is from what amounts to a blog — yes, I know there's a paper fanzine component to File 770, but frankly that outfit now borders on just a blog, in my opinion. Frankly, I think this is a part of a trend in Wikipedia where sci-fi subjects get undue weight and treatment compared to other areas. I compare this convention to, say, a semi-annual district convention of the Barbershop Harmony Society — roughly the same attendance, usually covered by local media, and been around for years — but not notable in its own right. (I chose this example because I used to be involved with that group.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File 770 is a six-time Hugo Award winning news publication with online and print components, not "a blog". The solution to any perceived over-representation of any subject is to create more articles in the areas you feel are under-represented, not deletion of otherwise properly sourced articles. - Dravecky (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So are you saying that any regularly-scheduled (i.e., annual) gathering that draws a few hundred folks and gets a couple of articles in the local paper plus an online mention or two is notable enough for an article? Gee, I better get to work on that BHS Cardinal District Convention article! Sorry, Dravecky, I'm not buying what you are selling. If it drew several thousand people, I might think otherwise, but there's no indication of that here. I also can't help but wonder if this is a part of a battle between the organizers of the original competing event and this one. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "So are you saying that any regularly-scheduled (i.e., annual) gathering that draws a few hundred folks and gets a couple of articles in the local paper plus an online mention or two is notable enough for an article?" Yes. Conventions with hundreds of members are generally notable in their communities. Mundane media are not very relevant in coverage of science fiction community events. Anime conventions get attendance of several thousand, science fiction conventions do not, but it's not the attendance figures that establish notability. FWIW, File 770 is one of the major journals of record of the science fiction community (along with Locus and Ansible). Avt tor (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I offer here that I am the one that made the article for MystiCon and am not involved in any competition. Other conventions with annual attendance the same numbers have pages here as well, and I was actually instructed to create the page here on Wiki, by editors here on Wiki. What you are talking about in regards to a 'competition' is perhaps 3 people from the original group of MystiCon that had personal filings with the other convention. The majority of the people within MystiCon do not. My source is the staff and board of directors listing and the legal filings that article referred to. Oh, and sidenote, I was thinking of creating the other convention page too but it's come to my understanding that they have since dissolved their corporation and no longer have the non-profit nor other statuses they once had. My source for that is federal/tax, notifications sent out to board, the meeting in which it happened and corporation filings. With that in mind, I wasn't even sure if it followed guidelines to be created, so I didn't create it. You know, the rule of thumb of better to be safe than sorry? Anyway, it's a slow project of mine but I'm working on conventions within Roanoke and Lynchburg. My next one is going to be working on the paranormal one that just happened this past weekend, as soon as I get the stats from that convention. Hope this clears things up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smikefoley (talk • contribs) 18:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC) — Smikefoley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • What other editors instructed you to do this? Please provide proof. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you always this...abrupt when speaking to new folks just trying to offer something to help Wiki grow? Your whole tone has been less than friendly and I'm wondering what offended you so much that you're treating people so aggressively. Please refrain from demanding things and try a please and thank you. It goes a lot more further than demands. I'm not on trial here; I'm just someone that, like several hundreds of other people, made a page on Wiki. When your tone improves, I'll be happy to share the information and my apologies for my tone, but you've been disrespectful and there's no excuse or reason for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smikefoley (talk • contribs) 01:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Smikefoley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I'm abrupt when I have to be, and when your cohort posts a message on my talk page with all sorts of accusatory and threatening language, I tend to become rather abrupt. Your organization's conduct at Wikipedia, aside from engaging in self-promotion (specifically prohibited), leaves much to be desired. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're speaking out of anger. I've already told you that I created the page. What was done on your page has nothing to do with me or the original topic of why you are wanting the page deleted and why you have not given any of the other convention pages this same notification. I'm truly confused why you are breaking WP's own rule about drama and harassment. It is wholly unfair and wrong to try and tear down the page because someone else is talking to you on your page in a tone you do not like. At this point, it would be unfair of you to continue to judge about this page. You are obviously not neutral in this. Hopefully, you will take a moment, step back, and realize that you shouldn't be penalizing others for one person's actions. I was messaged to create the site after I listed MystiCon on the convention page. I used the exact format that WP had set up for the other conventions. Am I going to have to go through this every time I add a Virginia-based convention? Because I have a number of others to work on that are also in VA (which is the area I'm interested in.) Please advise but if you're going to be negative or angry about it, I'd rather hear from Draveky and the other gent that was instructing me on how to proceed when I was editing on the American scifi convention page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smikefoley (talk • contribs) 01:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Smikefoley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Apparently your interest in science fiction extends to a perceived ability to establish someone else's emotions from miles away. Unfortunately, your proficiency in this skill appears to be lacking, and somewhat clouded by your own close connection to the subject at hand. Please do not assign erroneous emotions to me or anyone else, unless you are in their presence or talking to them by phone or similar. As for whether you will have to go through this every time you do a new article about another Virginia-based sci-fi convention — uh, yes. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please maintain WP's own path. Instead of fighting, why not help, as Dravecky has suggested and done, by improving the page. I'm not going to respond to any more of your attempted prods to add me to your row with the other person. The page meets criteria per WPs guidelines. As has already been pointed out, the subject is covered in-depth in multiple reliable third-party sources and crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. There is no advertising words in the body of WP (best convention ever, beats all others and so forth). There is only history of where its name came from, how it came to be, past happening, future happening, references with those 3rd party resources, and the link to the official site. The same format found on ALL other pages in this same venue. Thank you and good day. coffee is the real drink of the gods! (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No idea about any 'competition' since I've never been to either event, live a thousand miles away from them, and don't (to the best of my knowledge) know any of the people involved. I'm neither buying nor selling, just laying out facts and policy. - Dravecky (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I've seen competing interests in a situation try to battle out on WP before; thankfully, this is not one of those times. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 08:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take note that this editor threatened me with administrative action on my talk page, in violation of several Wikipedia policies. Furthermore, he had admitted that this article is for promotional purposes, violating WP:SPAM. This article now qualifies for speedy deletion, and Cekesner2 should probably be blocked, at least temporarily. (By the way, if you find any other articles about similarly-sized conventions with a similar lack of notability, please nominate for deletion or bring them to my attention. I suspect WP has quite a few of these.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not call that a threat, Realkyhick. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People of all ages, cultures and backgrounds can add or edit article prose, references, images and other media here. What is contributed is more important than the expertise or qualifications of the contributor. What will remain depends upon whether it fits within Wikipedia's policies, including being verifiable against a published reliable source, so excluding editors' opinions and beliefs and unreviewed research, and is free of copyright restrictions and contentious material about living people.
Why is this happening on WP of all places? I thought we were supposed to help make WP larger and invite people to create pages, not give the clubhouse/not invited impression.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smikefoley (talk • contribs) 01:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Smikefoley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Because, as I have patiently pointed out, the article violates Wikipedia policy against promotion, and also the event does not meet WP standards for notability. As for these other similar events which you feel might need attention: If you will kindly specify which articles you are talking about, we will gladly take a look at them and consider whether they should remain. I wouldn't be surprised to find that others should been deleted, but bear in mind that Wikipedia is a huge undertaking, and unsuitable articles sometimes slip through the cracks. Again, there is nothing personal against the event or you; it is merely an attempt to enforce longstanding Wikipedia policy over an article which is clearly unsuitable, but whose supporters are very, very persistent. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

to Jclemens - although that is a good idea in theory, after looking at all of the conventions listed on WP, it would be very taxing to try to merge all of those conventions on to one page and the odds are WP will lose out on a lot of good information. It would be a nightmare to uphold and things will be passed over because of the large amount of information on that one merged page. Much like those long novels that are like the energizer bunny and people lose interest and go to other sites/sources to get their information so they don't have to go through so much.

  • Reply File 770 is a six-time Hugo Award winning publication and a well-regarded reliable source of news for more than 30 years. The Roanoke Times is a daily newspaper serving southwestern Virginia since the 1880s. I hesitate to speculate what "overly local" might mean but it's nothing based in policy as regards the reliability of these third-party sources. - Dravecky (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Sadly Not notable, no reliable third-party in-depth coverage. Perhaps that may change sometime, but as it stands I can't see it meeting notability. Most of the arguments in favor of keeping have been I like it, it's useful and other arguments of that nature. I would request and suggest participants who are new to wikipedia please look at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, it will help you plead your case far more effectively. HominidMachinae (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Actually, my 'keep' !vote is firmly policy-based and the subject is the focus of in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. This discussion does seem to have devolved rather badly but you mischaracterize both several of the points in favor of keeping the article and the sourcing for this article. - Dravecky (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- There is a minority of Wikipedia editors who go around nominating articles for deletion and eviscerating verifiable, neutral information that other people went to great effort to collect. A great deal of useful information has been removed from Wikipedia by such people, and it's the main reason I stopped being an active editor a few years ago. This is yet another example of that. I do not pretend to know what motivates this crusade against sharing knowledge, but let's do what we can to discourage it. It's not good for Wikipedia, it's not good for the people who use Wikipedia, and it's not good for this article. This article should be kept, and expanded, with neutrally presented, verifiable information. This is what Wikipedia is for. -- 71.63.116.127 (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)— 71.63.116.127 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Also, I observe that both Cekesner2 and Realkyhick have an emotional connection to this specific article. It might be worthwhile to exclude their comments when evaluating this discussion, as they add more heat than light to the issue. -- 71.63.116.127 (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding any editor's comments from a deletion discussion is against Wikipedia policy, barring blatant violations of other policies. Who should be excluded and who should not is not your call. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean that your comments should be deleted. I meant that your comments should be ignored by people trying to get a clear picture of the facts of the situation. And you have worked pretty hard to strengthen that opinion. -- 71.63.116.127 (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have every confidence that the admin who decides this case will look at the comments, and also the histories (or lack thereof) of those who have commented, and take all of that into consideration when making his or her decision. And I'm pretty sure that my comments will not be simply disregarded, despite your efforts. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reminding me why I stopped being an active Wikipedia editor back in 2006. -- 71.63.116.127 (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This "long time user of Wikipedia" created his WP user name mere minutes before posting this, and this has been his or her only edit so far. - Realkyhick
    • Really, Realkyhick? You're assuming bad faith here? You shouldn't do that. Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith a great policy that protects you, too. Otherwise someone might argue that this nomination and your frantic and confrontational arguments are rooted a personal vendetta or something. But I'm certain you have Wikipedia's best interests at heart. RBalder (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk to me) 17:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • This complaint on Realkyhick's part is outright silly, as the user *specifically informs us* that the account was newly-created for the sole purpose of posting their comment. Tynam (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only pointing out his status, especially in light of the fact that there have been attempts outside of Wikipedia to come here and vote to keep. Also pointing out the possible contradiction between being a "long time user" and just now signing on for an account. You will also note that Wikipedia takes note that some people might be recruited for such efforts, and provides the ((spa)) (single-purpose account) template for indicating those to the admin who eventually decides the case. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as we see now, my suspicios were confirmed. This aim't my first trip to the AfD Rodeo, boys and girls. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • By what Wikipedia standard? BTW, this convention had 400 attendees, not "thousands." If it were thousands, I would tend to favor inclusion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the standard meaning of "notable": people are talking about it. Namegduf Live (below) puts it much more eloquently than I can. -- Benjamin Geiger (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "standard meaning" of notability and Wikipedia's definition of it are not one and the same. Please review the notability guidelines. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the article meets both definitions. Besides, the onus is on you, since you seem so hellbent on getting the article deleted. -- Benjamin Geiger (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should clarify; I am not asserting that attendance determines notability, but that claims that the limited amount thereof suggested a lack of it were flawed. Notability is established by the general notability guideline, which is met. Namegduf Live (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this meets Wikipedia's notability standards in what way? Please cite specific Wikipedia notability guidelines. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way do you feel it doesn't meet them? It seems to me it meets all the notablity guidelines I see. The only thing it doesn't meet is your own vague feeling about whether it is notable or not -- or your arbitrary ideas how many attendees are required to make something "notable". But the explicit guidelines themselves are passed. In another comment you say you would favor inclusion if it was a few thousand attendees instead of a few hundreds --- how arbitrary! Thousands may be enough for you, despite wikipedia guidelines, but hundreds are enough for me. Aris Katsaris (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where have you specifically cited "specific Wikipedia notability guidelines" in your RfD? Physician, heal thyself. Impassioned rhetoric and unbudgeable obstinacy are no substitute for actually supporting your point. What you demand from others, you refuse to provide yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.247.123 (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTABILITY provides "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as a guideline, with definitions of "significant coverage" (covered as a subject rather than a mention), "reliable", "sources", and "independent of the subject" (which mostly excludes self-promotional materials) that the references meet. This favours the "not notable" claims even less than claims based on size/locality, which are specifically not valid concerns under Wikipedia policy anyway. Namegduf Live (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The general notability guideline is what I quoted, and what I argue is easily satisfied; certainly you would need to go into more detail as to why it is not. The prohibition against promotion is not relevant; while the desire for an article to exist may have originally been for their own benefit, the article itself does not meet any of the three types of content defined as disallowed by WP:SPAM, and the article itself cannot be said to be spam. These arguments sound good on the surface but do not hold up to scrutiny. Namegduf Live (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More particularly, like most of Realkyhick's arguments here, the argument for deletion falls into a logical fallacy. None of the above policies are ever valid reasons for deletion--all are invalid reasons for retention (or for deletion). Thus, quoting them cannot be used to support deletion (but can be used to invalidate arguments for retention -- or deletion). Joshua Kronengold (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Mneme (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment -- While I concur with RBalder's assessment of the situation, I've not been to MystiCon myself. However, it seems to me that both Realkyhick and Cekesner2 have let their emotions run a bit high in the discussion of this matter. As such, I would recommend that they recuse themselves from the discussion in order to let cooler heads prevail. --Special Operative MACAVITYDebrief me 21:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I won't submit to this unless ordered by an admin. There is no reason to. I have done nothing but point out how the arguments of the fans of this event are wrong, and how their attempts to gin up support from outside Wikipedia is not allowed, and I have done so in a "jest the facts" manner. Contrary to what those connected with the event, who appear to be trying to induce me into an emotional reaction, I refuse to do so. As to their own emotions, I cannot speak to that, just as they (or you) cannot speak to mine without talking to me directly. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Jest the facts"? Really? You're campaigning to get this article deleted despite the fact that it's in keeping with several WP policies that you claim it violates - and this has been pointed out several times by other editors - simply because you don't think it should be here. If that's not an emotional conflict of interest, then I don't know what is. --Special Operative MACAVITYDebrief me 14:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Admins do not order people to recuse themselves from particular discussions. 66.220.144.74 (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears, through his comments on my talk page and elsewhere, that he directed the original author to create the article. That is a conflict of interest, at the very least. The difference between an advertising director for an event creating an article about that event, and telling someone else to do so on the event's behalf, are trivial at best. Why else would the advertising director tell someone to create the article except to promote the event? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not tracking the comments on personal talk pages, and I'm not going to speculate on anyone's motives. I'm basing my judgment on the article itself. -- Stephen Gilbert (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit hazy on this part of Wikipedia policy, but I don't think the original author or even sole editor having a conflict of interest is a valid reason to delete an article, merely a reason to give it a look for other concerns. Speculation as to whether someone who asked them to create it did so for purposes of promotion has little relevance to anything; as I've pointed out before, WP:SPAM is concerned with whether the article is written as an advertisement (and suggests improvement, not deletion, if it is), not whether an author might have the benefit of the subject of the article in mind at the time of writing. Namegduf Live (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A person's affiliation with a group is insufficient to establish motive for promotion of that group, even if they are the advertising director. Personal disclosure of a conflict of interest is not a basis for being attacked, as per WP:COI. Whatever happened to WP:AGF? Invite Cekesner2 to review WP:COI and WP:LUC. Anyway, at this point, I'd suggest moving MystiCon to the WP:AI. WP:AI criteria: 1. It is not excluded. 2. It is in the deletion process. 3. It may be more clearly notable given effort. 4. Smikefoley has indicated a desire to work on this, among other Virginian sci-fi conventions. 5. The subject (local sci-fi conventions) is important to a non-niche group, and it takes time to develop a paradigm for the inclusion of local convention information within Wikipedia, without resulting in WikiBloat. 76.200.133.130 (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I disagree with these folks, please refrain from name-calling. It's just as bad when it comes from one side as the other. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, but my disagreement comes from my own beliefs. Realkyhick was not wrong to state the opinion that this article is not notable and should be deleted. The evidence is not definitive one way or the other.
If the article does get deleted, I think that after a decent interval it should be rewritten by someone who has no direct connection to the Mysticon organization, and preferably with more sources. Complete a first draft offline and then enter the whole thing at once to avoid the problem the original writer had, with the deletion process interfering with his completion of the article.

Jethomas5 (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC) — Jethomas5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Apparently Facebook is the new 4chan. LOL. 198.151.130.69 (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most coverage by the Roanoke Times has focussed on two conventions collectivly and the legal battle between them and not specifically this one making it no more notable than no coverage at all.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple cited article where MystiCon is the sole or primary focus, enough to meet the WP:GNG. Even so, coverage of two things in one article does not in some unexplained way cancel out that coverage. - Dravecky (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I frankly don't understand how that would suddenly make it "no more notable than no coverage at all". Sourcability is sourcability, regardless of what else may be in the rest of the article. Is there a guideline you could point me to to explain this conclusion? Kansan (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I understand the WP:GEOSCOPE argument, but the mention of people coming in from out of state suggests this may be more than merely a local convention. There is also the File 770 source Dravecky mentions below, but that may or may not be as reliable of a source. Kansan (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you figure that? Not the COI authorship (though I'll likely be removing some of the wording that skirts around the lawsuit issue tomorrow). But how do you construe "sufficient" coverage? It was a single event, covered by a local newspaper. The "SF media" coverage is a single item, noting that one con was split into two after a legal filing. If all you need is a local paper mention and a statement of claim, I can do 12 of those tomorrow. The SF media source does not discuss the actual convention in any depth at all, it just notes the split. I would think there definitely needs to be more sources to show significant independent coverage. Franamax (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The File 770 coverage can hardly be said to be "in depth", or, to be honest, abut MystiCon itself. Just as people involved in notable events are not inheriting notable, neither are organizations that are involved in notable lawsuits (and it would be a ridiculous stretch to infer notability of the lawsuit from its coverage in File 770). Bongomatic 13:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orange Mike, I was hoping this discussion would hear from you. From your history, I understand that you've seen this type of argument before, and you're well-versed in the consensual standards for convention-related articles, especially regarding relative notability and convention coverage. Perhaps your expert knowledge can assist us in seeing how the MystiCon article fits into the big picture of science-fiction conventions on Wikipedia, especially with regard to where the notability line is drawn? 76.200.133.130 (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC) — 76.200.133.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Frankly, MystiCon is one of the weakest "keep" cases of the 14-way AfD "get the fans" deletefest, and if it were not for the press coverage of the feud, I could see a deletion argument going the other way. I am frankly much more concerned by the rather "pointy" nominations of such old established conventions as Readercon and Marcon (the latter the subject of a prize-winning filk song); and of course by the cultural bias against fans and fandom that some people's sneering comments display (not, however, Reallyhick, who went out of his way to criticize such snideness). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, please read WP:WAX and similar sections of that page. And I think the larger, more-established science fiction conventions — especially those with a national or near-national scope and coverage — are notable by anyone's definition, including Wikipedia's. I'm just saying this particular small con which has been held just once is not notable (at least not yet), and that editors connected to the con posted the article in an effort to promote it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. We normally aren't this crazy. But be advised that Wikipedia is not a directory — see this page. I haven't researched this personally, but I'm pretty sure a Google search would turn up a list of science fiction conventions in several places. If not, I would probably do well to start a site and sell ads :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to answer reallykyhick's challenge to find other SF convention pages that have weak references, because I thought he'd just mark all of them for deletion too. But I looked at List_of_science_fiction_conventions and picked the first ten conventions listed, and found that two of them are marked for deletion and none of the other eight have significant references. They reference their own websites, and sometimes local newspapers, and fandom blogs, and that's about it. (In one case the local newspapers were Austin and Dallas, but nobody outside Texas cares about those, right?) And that one was also once the official sponsor of the World Horror Convention, but is that really notable? Only to people who care about horror conventions.

Out of the first twenty, I found three that might be considered to have notable sources. Capclave is discussed in two printed books about fandom in the 1940s and 1950s. Botcon has many locations, including europe and Japan, and is involved with the Hasbro Hall of Fame. And Can-Con was once associated with the Ottawa Hi-Tech Buyer's Group. The other 17 mostly reference themselves, and their friends, and non-notable local newspapers.

If a lack of significant references is enough to get a SF convention page deleted, probably most of the list will need to be updated or face deletion. Jethomas5 (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is my point. Alas, another editor decided to go through the list as well, and put at least a couple of cons up for AfD. (I voted on both — one keep, one weak-ish keep.) But I suspect that many cons listed in the list-of article are like this, and some sort of threshold policy needs to be established. My rule of thumb: If a meeting of a bunch of, say, Barbershop Harmony Society singers (I use them as an example only because I'm familiar with them — I was a member years ago) that attracts some attention from the local newspaper or TV station, and brings 600 or so folks down to the local high school or Marriott every year is not notable by Wikipedia standards (and I don't), then why should a con exhibiting similar characteristics be considered notable? In other words, are we allowing a bias toward a certain group of people or events? I don't have any particular like or dislike toward science fiction, but I also know that many people feel very passionately about it, and I suspect that many like that are also active on Wikipedia. I suspect this also exists in other genres of fandom. It's something we need to get a handle on. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am increasingly dubious about this whole concept.
"notable topics—those that have gained significant and enduring notice by the world at large"
A few months ago I looked for a science fiction convention in Virginia. Wikipedia was not useful. Around the same time I looked up some arcane mathematical topics and found them. Also some computer algorithms. I expect the number of people interested in those latter topics is far smaller than those interested in SF. But if we apply this criterion evenly we will probably eliminate 98% of the existing SF-related topics from Wikipedia, because most of them are of interest only to people who are interested in SF and not to the world at large. Similarly with the GLBT info -- we shouldn't censor it just because it offends a lot of people, but even more people find it utterly boring.
Perhaps Wikipedia could split into, say, Wikipedia and WikiArcana and just move all the stuff that only small minorities care about (like mathematical details and SF and such) into the wilderness?

Jethomas5 (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WEAK KEEP So, I read through everything that has been said, and to me it comes down to a couple things. 1. Is a few hundred people considered "popular". I think it is to them, but probably not to the world as a whole. 2. What is the definition of a creditable independent source? Well, even a small newspaper is supposed to be a indifferent credible source, but we all know that local news thinks that THEIR news is the most important, even when it's not. 3. Is Realkyhick emotional about this subject or is that just how he rolls? We don't really know him so we can't say. He might just be the kind of person that is abrupt and doesn't feel there is anything wrong with that. (for the record, I'm that kind of person.) Now I know it seems like I'm making an argument for DELETE, but I'm not. It's my opinion that the website shouldn't be deleted because the argument for deletion and the argument for keeping is both pretty weak, but wouldn't we rather error on the side of caution when there is no set in stone policy and there is so much opinion being thrown around? The posts says that the decision to keep or delete is based off of content, not votes, so both sides, please, stop posting almost word for word an opinion someone else has already posted. Oh, never posted anything before, just made account, spent about 30 min reading through this, just in case anyone thinks I'm an expert, I'm not. Medros8 (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Medros8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Request and Comment: Could someone please gather the rationale behind the argument for deleting in a more easily digestible format? I can't seem to find (or at least sort out) anything concrete on it between the flared tempers and inaccurate information about "the other side" all around. For what it's worth, I can't see how this article fails notability given the list of sources it already has, but I don't think I can vote keep unless I can see what the actual argument is behind this AfD. --Tathar (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for deletion on two counts: 1) that the event was a small, local event that had only been held once, and not meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, and 2) it was created primarily to promote the event (later confirmed when the original editor admitted he had been directed to create the article by the con's publicity director); promotion of anything is prohibited at Wikipedia. The original parties involved with the article claim the con is notable enough, and that they are not trying to promote through this article. And sorry about all the back-and-forth, for as you can see, the debate has grown quite contentious at times. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but my request was how you came to the conclusion that it wasn't notable. Just saying something isn't notable is only a claim; you need to support a claim with evidence to solidify your argument. Also, the promotion argument seems absurd to me. The article doesn't seem to have anything in it that violates NPOV at all, let alone read like an advertisement. Just because someone who previously edited the article admitted doing so to promote the article's subject doesn't mean that further edits that remove the POV parts or edit them into NPOV language ultimately are meaningless. Besides, if the article meets notability policy, POV language in the article is best edited rather than the entire article being deleted. --Tathar (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guidelines require significant coverage in reliable in-depth sources independent from the subject. Several articles in the Roanoke Times have been offered up, as has an article in File 770. Editors (including myself) who believe the article doesn't meet the requirements have argued:
  • Per WP:GEOSCOPE and other discussions / outcomes relating to local coverage, that the Roanoke Times coverage is of too local a nature to establish notability; and
  • That File 770 is not a "reliable source" for the purposes of establishing notability, and/or (and, in my case) that the coverage in that sources is not sufficiently "in-depth" to meet the guideline.
Hope that's helpful. Bongomatic 07:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File 770 is a six-time Hugo Award winning news publication, international in scope, renowned for its coverage of science fiction and related topics. By all reasonable interpretations of WP:RS, it is a reliable source and coverage in File 770 can be used to help establish notability. - Dravecky (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fanzine. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GEOSCOPE seems to answer my questions about one of the sources, but fanzine or not, File 770 seems to be more reliable than the connotation of "fanzine" may suggest. Ultimately the notability question is this (to paraphrase): can a non-stub article be made on the subject based on multiple third-party reliable sources? --Tathar (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Realkyhick, Thank you for that clear explanation. I strongly disagree about the promotion angle -- it doesn't matter what the author intended, the result is not promotion. I think you should drop that one.
I mostly disagree about File 770. It is self-published but it has decent editorial control. If being self-published was enough to discredit it, isn't Wikipedia itself self-published?
I think your other points are debatable but not unreasonable. Local newspapers are not automatically discredited as sources, but they are not automatically accepted, either. File 770 did not necessarily give the sort of information about Mysticon which would establish it as notable. Whether Mysticon is actually notable enough to belong in Wikipedia at this point is also a matter of opinion.

Jethomas5 (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not acceptable as a source for articles either -- and we don't generally accept self-published sources for information on third parties. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what? File 770 is one of the three standard sources for current news and information in the science fiction world, along with Locus and Ansible. Anything appearing there must be regarded as fully sourced and fully reliable (more so than coverage in many mainstream newspapers). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. After reading the arguments so far, I think we should keep this one and try to expand the article's length. The COI argument seems to be a moot point now, and there's enough to back up File 770's credibility. Even with WP:GEOSCOPE making the local newspaper source not enough to establish notability, I think that there can be enough reliable source material to warrant an article, and there seems to be enough editors paying attention to this article now to actually do it. Though, if it's still a stub a month from now, I'll change to delete. --Tathar (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - This article is so short, that I don't see how it could even come under the suspicion of being biased or promotional.--Mirage GSM (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For those who are complaining about the material that would be "lost" by deleting this article -- I encourage you to copy the existing material to either of the two SF fandom-specific wiki's: http://fanlore.org or http://www.fanhistory.com . AFAICS, it will be welcomed there! And, luckily enough, since the text is free content, you can do so legally. This is NOT about information being lost, it's about whether that information should be here. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep: WP:NOT The Wikipedia is not paper. And no, I am not a meat-puppet. Eqdoktor (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Been drawn here by Rob Balder's rant. I can understand Realkyhick points that this article is borderline regarding WP:N but we need to keep the spirit of an inclusive encyclopedia. The article content is neutral and well written although not very informative. As long as the addition of this kind of article do not clutter more notorious ones with WP:D I'm OK with it. Slb (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, inclusive or not, there is a point where an article just needs to be deleted. Still, in cases where WP:N is borderline, it's best to keep the article and wait until later so that all options are still available at a future date, when notability can be assessed again. If you delete right away, then you take away potentially good options, and that's bad for the project as a whole. --Tathar (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Keep: I don't think that Realkyhick can distance himself from the problem at this point. As an earlier user pointed out, he isn't making a case for deletion beyond attacking the points that other people are making to keep. That is not, in and of itself, a strong reason to delete the article. The arguments in favour of keep, and the way Realkyhick has conducted himself with regards to this AfD have swayed me to keep. Given a little work, I'm sure we could find some information to add to it. So perhaps putting down the torches and pitchforks and picking up a spade would be the correct course of action here? AFAIC, the localization of the publication is less important as it is a local event. As journalists would tell you, proximity is one of the indicators of newsworthiness.

If you've been drawn here from Rob Balder's Erfworld or Facebook, please don't add to the noise. While I'm sure your support would be appreciated, you may trample the article in your haste to save it. --Fiat Lux (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So defending myself from those who seek to impugn my motives, or pointing out the fallacies in others' reasoning (such as "Wikipedia isn't running out of space"), is a reason to keep this article? (In Glenn beck voice:) "Reaaally?" That so defies logic, I find myself at a loss as to how to respond. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's not what is being said at all. The point is that if your only argument to delete is that you disagree with the keep arguments, there is no argument to delete. As a general rule for civil discussion, please refrain from making sentences of the form "So you're saying...". These summaries are almost always wrong enough to appear to be deliberately missing the point, and attacking the summary usually constitutes a strawman argument at best. I understand that that is likely not your intention, which is all the more reason to avoid it. -- 70.58.154.242 (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the reasons for deletion I set forth when I nominated the article to start this whole thing. (I understand completely if it's hard to follow back that hard. I've almost lost track myself :-) ) In short, it's lack of notability and self-promotion. As for "So you're saying...", sometimes it's necessary if the person you're addressing hasn't made their point entirely clear, either by their expression or one's own percenption. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And, with notability issues taken care of and the self-promotion bit being shown to be a nonissue, all that's left is your vehement disagreement with the Keeps, yet you continue to make such passionate arguments. And, while I understand the intended purpose behind the "So you're saying..." statement, you are incorrect in stating that it is necessary. A much more civil and productive solution is to request clarification, perhaps including a brief summary as you understand it, and what until clarification before actually commenting. To comment on your own supposition of their meaning is unproductive at best and actively harmful at worst. -- 70.58.154.242 (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, I found this AfD from Erfworld, but if we all put our Wikipedia hats on while we're here, I don't think that's really a big deal. That said, I found something interesting while browsing through the AfD category. Since consensus seems to be shifting to Keep anyway, it might not be necessary in this case, but WP:AI seems to be a pretty good idea for articles that need a lot of work to follow policy, assuming there are people willing to volunteer the time to do it. --Tathar (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: From WP:NOTABILITY:"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." File 770 appears to satisfy this requirement. It is a reliable source that is independent of the subject. A dedicated article counts as significant coverage. Therefore, MystiCon is "presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" by WP:NOTABILITY.

From WP:LOCAL: "It may be considered that if enough attributable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article." The key word here is "attributable." I count 5 references, 4 of which are "attributable to a reliable published source" as defined in WP:A. (The 5th is "Convention Fans." I'm not sure whether that counts as a "self-published source" or a "professional self-published source" for WP:A.)

Regarding the speculation and discussion about people's motives found above: The advertising director was obviously WAY out of line when he stepped into this debate, but it doesn't appear that he created the article. Cekesner2's actions shouldn't reflect poorly on Smikefoley. On the other side, the speculation that Realkyhick is personally or emotionally opposed to MystiCon is also baseless. A few minutes of research reveals that he does this all the time for newly created articles. Please WP:AGF on both sides. 0x539 (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Convention Fans" is a blog, and cannot be used here, as it doesn't meet our standards of reliable source. I've removed that reference (which was superfluous anyway). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ckesner2 is only relevant in that it was he who directed Smikefoley to create the article. In other words, the two worked in tandem to create an article about a con in which both are involved, We know this because of what both have posted here, as well as on my talk page. In other words, there is little difference between a PR director for an event posting an article, and for that PR director to instruct someone else to do so. They are seeking to promote their event, in violation of Wikipedia policy. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though this is a little tangential, I will note that it is irrelevant if the intent was to promote at time of writing (which seems still in question). The anti-promotional argument is only valid if it is an attack against what an article actually does. [If I meant to kill a person, but instead saved their life, we do not lock me up for murder.] I think it is clear that the article as it stands does not represent advertisement, and should not be judged as such. (It should be noted that I am generally a strong anti-deletionist, under the 'Wikipedia has no deadlines' policy.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.91 (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "Promotion" flag that Realkyhick keeps waving, I thought a copy of that guideline might be useful: "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." Even an article written about a company specifically by its marketing director solely because he wanted his company to be in Wikipedia would not qualify for deletion under this criterion if: The company was notable and the article was encyclopedic and from a NPOV. G11 specifically says that the article has to be exclusively promotional and require extensive rewriting to become encyclopedic. It doesn't say who the source of the article is or their motives in writing it, it only addresses the resulting article's quality. I posit that the "promotion" argument does not apply here. The only relevant question at this point for the deletion request is: Is the subject of the article notable? Arrataz (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are talking about the "blue" G11, which is a speedy deletion criterion, not an Articles for Discussion criterion. If it was a G11, it would have been gone long ago. I'd like to say that quite a few of the flood of newly-registered editors commenting here have made very cogent summations and justifications for their conclusions on this specific instance. I really hope that I will see some of you hanging around here and editing all the many articles we could use help with. Forget about this particular article, just come here and help us to edit the encyclopedia. Franamax (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. He actually started calling for speedy deletion and waving the "Promotion" flag. Repeatedly. Just search the text to find it numerous places. I was addressing that specific specious claim. "Before you correct me, first make sure you're right, then make sure I'm wrong." Also, I'm not "newly registered". Been around for a long time. Arrataz (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this discussion from a link protesting the pending deletion. In good faith I have read the article in question and the discussion here to the pros and cons of this action. Here is my two cents worth: I would not oppose this deletion, but not on the issues cited by Realkyhick(which I really think are overblown and without merit). This article, if you can realistically call it that, is no more than the bare bones of what it needs to be in order to be useful to anyone seeking information on the event in question. If the supporters put half as much time fleshing out the entry as they have put here rehashing the same arguments then this article would not be in danger. The comments on using self promotion as the reason for deletion being applied to hundreds of articles, they have a point. If you use that measure on this entry then in fairness you will need to put the majority of the entries on everything from Cons to authors and books in the ash pile as well.24.51.139.188 (talk)sirnomad —Preceding undated comment added 13:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Arbitrary Break[edit]

I want to repeat your arguments in my own words, tell me whether I got them right? You say delete for two reasons, it's self-promotion and it isn't notable.

Then for the actual rules, the article includes two sources.

So neither is a good source, and even if they were good sources they would not make it notable. Is this your position? Did I leave out something important or get something wrong? Jethomas5 (talk) 05:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A pretty good summary, though not entirely correct. I have no issue with The Roanoke Times as a reliable source — especially since I'm a newspaper reporter. :-) As for File 770, the science-fiction community seems to consider it a reliable source, given that it won a Hugo Award. I'm still not convinced, so this is a point of debate. Additionally, of the three refs listed from the Times, one is a legitimate full-blown feature story, the other is a slightly-longer version of a calendar-of-events listing which also dwells on the split between the two shows, and the third appears to be a photo gallery that is (or should be) linked to one of the other two, and therefore isn't really a separate item. I can't figure out how the Times' content-management software has them linked. But as you said, even if all were good sources, the con isn't notable because of lack of longevity, geographic scope/attraction and attendance. Somewhere in this massive AfD is my rule-of-thumb about barbershop quartet conventions: is MystiCon more notable than an annual quartet convention (or model railroaders, or any other enthuiasts' genre you could name) of similar attendance and with similar press coverage? I argue that neither event would be notable. I would also add that MystiCon might later grow to be notable if it keeps going for a few years, or grows in attendance. But right now as a first-year con which has no guarantee of making it to a second year, I say it isn't notable. - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/NoticeboardRealkyhick (Talk to me) 07:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. About the self-promotion argument, many people have said that it doesn't matter what the authors intend, the article itself is not self-promotion. I haven't noticed you respond to this. Will you withdraw the self-promotion point?
I want to put aside the arguments about whether it's really notable. There's room for legitimate disagreement about that. Instead look at the actual criteria, the argument for notability by notable reference from notable sources.
I say your arguments about this are not illegitimate and there's room for disagreement. Other people can argue whether the sources say enough about Mysticon to make it notable. But it's important whether File 770 is itself a reliable source.
"...self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable."
File 770 is self-published. So is Ansible, though Locus is not. If we apply this standard then a great deal of fandom-related material will become unsourced.
"Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to discuss File 770 and Ansible on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ? Jethomas5 (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Within the science fiction community, these three publications are the gold standard of reliability; it is no accident that they are repeated Hugo nominees and winners. If you don't understand that, you are so out of contact with the field as to render this entire discussion futile. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orange Mike, it's clear that these three publications are the gold standard of reliability within the science fiction community. But there appears to be no consensus among members of this discussion whether Wikipedia should accept the SF community's standard. We've argued back and forth.
"It's the SF gold standard."
"It's self-published, no good."
"It's the best the SF community has to offer."
"Just a fanzine, worthless."
Would it make sense to actually discuss the topic in the place set up to discuss that kind of thing? Then next time we'll have a place to point. On the other hand, that place has 93 archives and I didn't see how to search them all at once so I only searched the first 15. Maybe it's already been done.

Jethomas5 (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree. Orange Mike and I are actually discussing that on his talk page. It should actually apply to numerous genres in fandom, while we're at it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to wonder whether it's worth bothering. A google for "David Langford" and "Ansible" together provides links to notes by people whose opinions are clearly worthless, since they write about (and in some cases write) science fiction: people like David Hartwell, Kathryn Cramer (a/k/a our own User:Pleasantville), Gardner Dozois, Michael Bishop, Jo Walton, Karl Edward Wagner, Neil Barron, Brian Stableford, Neil Gaiman, Nobel Prize winning physicist Frank Wilczek and the compilers of bumfodder like No Country for Old Men: Fresh Perspectives on Irish Literature , The Work of Ian Watson: An Annotated Bibliography & Guide, Attending Daedalus: Gene Wolfe, Artifice and the Reader and the notoriously frivolous Twentieth-Century Science-Fiction Writers. Hack zines like Nature and New Scientist clearly cannot be relied upon, if they take the word of mere science fictionists (have I mentioned that the term "sci-fi" is a pejorative to many of us?) about science fiction! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it seems to me that since MystiCon is a branch-off from SheVaCon, Mysticon should be a separate heading in the SheVaCon page...if it's a question of longevity. MystiCon has been around since 2010 - SheVaCon, since the early 1990s. The problem is the SheVaCon article doesn't exist. I guess their advertising director isn't as on-the-ball.  :) 76.200.133.130 (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say no to much of that. They are both good sources. The Roanoke Times is a perfectly good source for events local to their own coverage area. File 770 won a Hugo in 1984 for best fanzine, that is an established credential. As it happens, Shawna won that year too, as editor of IAsfm. If I looked through my back issues enough, I could likely find some good cites for SF fanzines as being considered reliable back then. I think we should take off the table whe"Just a fanzine, worthless."ther or not File 770 is a reliable source, and instead discuss what is actually represented in the source. It seems to me that if you actually read through the material, what is being discussed is actually SheVaCon. That is the con that has run 20 years, and the out-of-court settlement reached by that group is what prompted the partivular mention. Mysticon occurred before SheVaCon that year, so it occurs first in the "listing" style of the cited article. But it would not evem be there if it were not for the prior notability of SheVaCon, otherwise it would have been just a line item in the "events calendar" section of File 770. And on Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. (Does this link work? Franamax (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's an important point to make here. Arguments to Avoid in AfD includes Graham's hierarchy of disagreement right at the top. The hierarchy suggests an order to the different possible ways to disagree/discuss. At the top is refuting the central point explicitly, at the bottom is name calling (the hierarchy displayed uses the term ass hat as an example). Just above name calling is Ad Hominem: "attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the article." I would say that both sides have been a little guilty of that. Only two steps above that is Contradiction: "[stating] the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence", which is what much of the arguments for deletion seem to have done.

In keeping with Graham's Hierarchy, I'm going to jump straight for the second tier: Refutation.

The comments that MystiCon or coverage of it is too local fall under this fallacy "Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline requires multiple sources independent of the subject to cover the subject in order to establish notability. But this guideline does not specify the locality of the coverage."

Likewise, the size of this event does not affect its notability, as per WP:BIG which states: Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources.

The scale or lack of knowledge that individuals who are not involved with the SF/Convention community is also a little moot. WP:LOCALFAME includes the following in its explanation "some subjects' notability may be limited to a particular country, region, or culture. However, arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia. To avoid this systemic bias, Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English speaking population or within more populous or Internet-connected nations. Likewise, arguments that state that because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable.

" This argument is not sufficient on its own to be persuasive in deletion discussions."

No one can argue whether or not MystiCon will or will not be an important event and arguments to this point fall under a very specific branch of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

Likewise, Realkyhick's comments about the employment of the author, or the actions of the MystiCon staff on WP seem to be recurrent and verging on personal attack. However, ATA has something that covers that quite nicely. It even shares a name! WP:ADHOM states: "A deletion discussion is about the article in question itself. Though the suitability of other related articles may be mentioned during the discussion, and some deletions are bundled with other articles, the debate is not about the creator or any other editors of the article, nor is it about the AfD nominator or anyone who has commented on the AfD." I apologize if this seems like a personal attack Realkyhick, but it was not intended that way.

And lest we forget the wisdom of children's cartoons from the 1950s let us all gaze upon the wonder that is WP:DUCKSEASON. This AfD seems to have gotten a little out of hand. So, let's all remember what it is here for. -- Nonesuch: Fiat Lux 13:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Don't be a WP:DICK about it unless you're here for the Argument Clinic ;-) Eqdoktor (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If an appropriate merge target could be suggested, I'd have no objection to a merge. Perhaps the list article would do, with the table of major conventions at the top with their Wikilinks, and the minor one in a section at the bottom, with maybe a paragraph on each. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of Science Fiction Conventions - as you said, listing for the wikilinks and paragraphs for the minors - patitomr (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I concur with Realkyhick that it is biased to focus on this type of event because it is of interest to a group that is closer to WP, which enables them to can work on it more intently. Also I think that a line is crossed when the ability to modify WP is treated as an entitlement, and more measure should be applied to understand that things hold different value for a public venue than for a body of knowledge. But in the end it comes down to what things really are and become, which the harmony society does well on its own. Any further comparison is that they are both organizations - patitomr (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I only used the barbershop quartet analogy because I was a member years ago, and therefore familiar with their annual (actually semi-annual) conventions which normally get about the same attendance and local press coverage. In other words, it was handy. Many other groups of enthusiasts could serve the same comparative purpose. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me)
Absolutely - patitomr (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, just to clarify: Individual barbershop quarter conventions do not have Wikipedia articles, nor am I arguing they should — in fact, if someone posted an article about an individual BHS district convention, I would probably move for deletion. My apologies if I have not been clear about that, as I merely used that analogy for comparison purposes and by way of my own convenience. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and the Earth article too since not a single one of those sources is from an off-world or extra-solar source. It's geocentric bias at its worst! (Tongue firmly in cheek here. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (5th nomination).) - Dravecky (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Here is the information on notability from the wiki page on the subject.
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. (Both roanoke.com articles go into the events at Mysticon, and interview participants. One also gives equal time to the "rival" SheVaCon).
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. (In my opinion, a published newspaper, even if it is not national, should count a reliable since there are actual editors that are paid to make sure they don't print drivel - thus providing "editorial integrity").
"Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. (Neither the Roanoke Times or File 770 appear to be directly linked to Mysticon (I may have missed the reference to a Roanoke article having been written by a friend of Mysticon). In addition, the two Roanoke times articles were written by different authors).
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.(I didn't see any indication that either Roanoke article was based on a press release. The one that interviewed participants appears to be written by the journalist based on his own interviews.)
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.(This is clearly the biggest sticking point, in my opinion. The idea that no one has ever written an article in WikiPedia with the hopes of garnering attention for themselves/their event/their product seems naive, but that is for wiser people than I to decide.)

Another bit of information that was requested and not supplied is a list of similar cons that have not been flagged for deletion. I hope that linking to a few examples will not be thought of as attacking the authors of these pages. I only want to supply information that was requested, and hopefully contribute to a better understanding of this issue in the future. I am not trying to get these pages flagged for deletion.
Boskone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boskone_%28convention%29) Only references its own website, from what I can tell.
BayCon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BayCon) Appears to be similarly local, and sites websites and livejournal entries as sources.
Balticon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balticon) Has only very short references, and also appears to be a local event.
Boskone and Balticon do have notes that they need citations, but are not flagged for deletion. BayCon has neither notes. The one thing that these pages have that Mysticon does not is history - they have all been running for far longer than Mysticon. In that light, I might suggest that the Mysticon page give a nod to SheVaCon by listing past information about that convention and saying that Mysticon grew from this older, more established con, or by stating more history about the convention that originally bore the Mysticon name.
Again, I would like to apologize if this information is not useful. It is submitted with the goal of removing some of the emotions from this discussion, and hopefully creating a more clear guideline to use for the future. Sharshenka (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)sharshenka Keep, the sources are good. (Did I dodge the drama? Did I? Did I?) --Kizor 07:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reasons for deletion are exaggerated. The article does not appear to be overtly promotional and it appears to be notable enough for inclusion. Tbannist (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Upon review of the article as it currently stands, I found only one statement that verged on promotional language. I have replaced it with neutral language. 0x539 (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a bit of a stub, but I can't see that it violates any guidelines. The fact the original author could possibly have had a conflict of interest should only be taken to indicate that some scrutiny was in order, but doesn't automatically invalidate the article. The article in it's current form meets notability guidelines (multiple independent published sources) and doesn't appear to be promotional in nature. It's not particularly interesting to me, but it does belong. Please note that number of attendees and locality are largely irrelevant to notibility, and that the original author's purpose in writing the article (and the subject's management defending the article in and inappropriate manner) have no bearing on the article itself. Judge the article for the article, not for the people around the article. Gatherer818 (talk) 08:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete (Disclaimer: I found out about this article via Erfworld) On one hand, I see where Realkyhick is coming from, and agree with him to an extent. This whole thing lies in a grey area of notability, and I really want to say "keep it" because it does have coverage and is somewhat locally notable. However, as the mega-huge divisive argument of doom has shown, its notability is circumspect and I would say err on the side of safety. I would like to see more diverse sources cited. Perhaps as the convention grows and gets more coverage it can be put up on here, but with as many established editors as there are present saying that the article isn't notable enough then perhaps it should be taken down until its notability is less divisive. Jmclark (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • If erring on the safe side has begun to mean deleting instead of not deleting... well, that makes me want to cry. --Kizor 01:47, 13 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.
More