Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RoundCon

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RoundCon

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

Someone prodded, stating that "Other then just the main website. This article has no other references and doesn't seem real notable.", but article creator removed PROD. Earlier deleted today as G11 but the current version doesn't look like advertising. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did not WP:PROD this article - let's be very clear about that. Secondly, WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE apply. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... Sorry morenooso... but still, it still doesn't seem to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 04:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 04:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apologize for earlier deleting your markup. I did not fully realize the importance of the notcie at the time. I have tried to make all of your recommended changes. Please let me know how else I can improve and update this listing. Thank you for your input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Techknowteach (talk • contribs) 04:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything but false positives in a Google News Archive search, and the WaPo article linked doesn't even reference "RoundCon". Afraid it's an NN con, but no objection to merging the content somewhere per NNC. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Yahoo search of RoundCon shows that it gets tertiary coverage in anime and sci-fi type websites. Seeing as the article states it was started in 1985, I thought that asserted some notability. The 2009 convention got lots of hits because it appears that it was initially canceled and then rescheduled. I hoped that by tagging it with the notability and primary sources tags, somebody smarter than this bear could find some better references. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. The 1985 start date is not backed up by anything. I find that there has been no coverage found for a supposed 25-year-old convention very dubious. —Farix (t | c) 11:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For the nominator, under which specific category is your nomination based? Notability is broad and needs a basis. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it would fall under either WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Though I personally think WP:ORG limits on local media is contrary to WP:GNG, which has no such limits. —Farix (t | c) 13:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The nominator needs to make this clear. The nominating comments, "doesn't seem real notable" are ambigous and unclear. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment It could have been worded better, but that doesn't make it invalid. —Farix (t | c) 14:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Didn't you read? I wrote that what the PROD said, it wasn't me who wrote that OK?. Anyway to me it fails WP:RS and WP:GNG. Anyway, although it says "prodded", In fact it originally said "Prodded by morenooso", but I changed that after Morenooso's comments. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original Prod. Phearson (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please allow this posting to remain. It was posted purely as an informational source. It is of the same nature as Dragon Con and Gen Con. These sites are allowed to remain. Please consider allowing this posting to stay active. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mswygert (talk • contribs) 18:22, 12 July 2010 (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.