Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConQuest SF

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 delete. Blueboy 96 17:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ConQuest SF

NN convention. Nakon 00:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not appear to be a notable convention along the lines of GenCon. I was not able to find any independent coverage of this event beyond directory listings and the like. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

This convention keeps running while Gencon SoCal has foundered. It is quite well-established as a major convention on the West Coast. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my response under your comment below. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, fails WP:N. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConQuest VEGAS, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConQuest SAC, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConQuest NW. These articles were deleted but have since been recreated as redirects to the ConQuest SF article. If result of this is delete, closing admin should be sure to delete ConQuest VEGAS, ConQuest NW, ConQuest RENO, ConQuest LA‎, and ConQuest SAC as well since all of these redirect here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable. Searching for sources is bit confusing since there seem to be so many conventions with this name in different cities and the word conquest is widely used. See also Conquest Games Convention. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any reliable third-party sources that demonstrate the notability of this event? I'm not saying that they out-and-out don't exist, but if they can't be found, they may as well not exist. Conquest Games Convention also appears to have similarly unclear notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per the precedent set at prior AfDs. Some cons are notable and verifiable, but the lack of reliable sources indicates these particular ones are neither. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable. Industry coverage here at http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=21575 and http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/1401517/. Notable inherently as one of the oldest game conventions on the West Coast. Spinning off a number of other gaming conventions adds to that notability. ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondoman (talk • contribs) 14:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not quite sure how reliable gamingreport.com is, so I won't pass judgement on that, but the mefeedia.com link takes me to what appears to be a Youtube clone. We don't accept Youtube as a reliable source normally, and I don't see why this would be accepted as such either. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  - Neither of those are reliable sources (the gaming report story is less about the convention and more about a person who was going to be there) and I'm not really finding any evidence of reliable sources. Also that source lists ConQuest SF (and its predecessor Pacificon, though we can't even be sure they are really the same thing) as "the second oldest gaming convention in the Bay Area," not "the West Coast." I'm not sure the latter is even notable, but being "second oldest in the Bay Area" doesn't seem notable at all. In any case we need significant coverage in reliable, third party sources to establish notability and so far I don't see any.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here is another report establishing ConQuest's notability and it's link to Pacificon. http://gamingoutpost.com/article/conquest_report/ ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondoman (talk • contribs) 06:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's basically the equivalent of a blog post by an unnamed person (all we have is a user name) that describes their experience at one of the conventions and talks about some of the games, people there, etc. It just isn't a reliable source and it does not establish the notability of this convention. Re: Pacificon, the only mention of it in the article seems to suggest that it is/was a distinct event and ConQuest was merely created by the same people: "He and a few other volunteers from Pacificon got together to form a convention in the Bay Area, and voila, ConQuest!" So far if anything the sources being mentioned hurt the case for keeping this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jargon nomination. Catchpole (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, could you explain what the above means? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  - The nomination is incoherent. Deletion discussions should not be conducted in "wiki-jargon" as a courtesy to new editors or other parties for who this may be their introduction to the encyclopedia. Catchpole (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It could be phrased better so it does not use jargon, but obviously the rationale provided by the nom is that it is not notable (and links to WP:N). It is definitely not "incoherent." Your keep rationale, however, does not address the issue of notability which is what is at stake.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per all of the other ConQuest conventions which were recently deleted and have since been recreated as sections of this article, which has no reliable sources as to its notability. Corvus cornix_talk 21:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is Gaming Report an unreliable source? ˜˜˜˜
- Is the ConQuest SF article notability being challenged because of the addition of the information of the other conventions it has successfully spun-off...a fact that seems to add to its notability. ˜˜˜˜
- Is the remedy to eliminate the information in the article about the other sister conventions? ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.254.15.216 (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know whether Gaming Report is reliable or not, but the article cited from that source is primarily about "Dungeons & Dragons co-creator Dave Arneson" who was going to be at ConQuest SF. The convention itself is only discussed in a trivial fashion so this is not "significant coverage." I don't think it really matters whether the other spin-off conventions are there or not. The notability is being challenged because there is not significant coverage in reliable sources, therefore ConQuest SF is not notable.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Notability guidelines. The external links presented above do not satisfy WP:Reliable sources. Marasmusine (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2008 (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.