- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- TotalCon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable event. No independent references. Very small attendence by notable parties. Google shows only forum posts. PROD removed with a justification related to Iron GM, which doesn't appear to be notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no references provided and a quick search brought up nothing of note - certainly nothing in news sources that could be considered "coverage" of any sort. On that basis I would suggest it wouldn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH as an enterprise or WP:EVENT as an event. For the record, I don't think this is a case of demolishing the house while it is being built as the original author has suggested in edit summaries - the burden is on the original author to provide references, this has not been done and I cannot see that there is any way it could be done given the lack of coverage. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Following up on the WP:DEMOLISH comment: I'm an active new page patroller, but patrol 10 days into the log and almost always (including in this case) use a WP:PROD with creator notification to give the creator and/or interested parties a two-week window to build the solid foundations of an article. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. It's possible that there's coverage from the pre-Internet days, but I've found nothing that would be considered enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources that would show it passes notability standards. This just isn't notable, despite it having run for so long.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable and does not meet WP:EVENT. Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This article is non notable and no references are provided. It also does not meet WP:EVENT. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No considerable amoutnt of reliable sources found to showcase notability. — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:59, 12 September 2012 (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.