Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daigacon (4th nomination)

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 and salt--Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daigacon

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

Obscure NN ephemeral anime convention with a long history of being deleted and then restored, often out of process and/or by SPAs. Attendance never broke 300, and other than listings on a convention aggregator website of a sort explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE, the other two sources listed are (1) a broken link to the website of a local alternative arts monthly, and (2) a small county paper with a reported circulation of 6,000. A G-news search turned up only the Wikipedia article [1], and a general Google search turns up nothing beyond blogposts, press release listings, Flickr pages and the like; this fails both the GNG and WP:GEOSCOPE.

At this point, given the status as a defunct subject repeatedly held to be non-notable only to be recreated by a devoted SPA (who admitted that he was trying to "get my name put on something famous" [2]), I'm asking that it be both deleted and salted. Ravenswing 00:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Something I note is that the other three AFDs happened a few years back, with the most recent being eight years and some small change ago. The temptation to G4 exists for me, but that's way too far back for me to consider it an option; moreover, I don't have the prior versions' history to make that call, it could very well be different. This said, I'm recommending deletion as it does not seem to meet our general notability guidelines. Of the links present, animecons.com seems more like a listing for cons in general (a place to find info on cons), and it looks like even new cons can list there; beyond this, one article link is dead, and the other is only a single news article from a secondary source talking about the con, leading me to consider potential issues with WP:LOCAL. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - Of note, for the user who was accused of SPA, it should be noted that the block happened in 2007; however the user has not been active since 2009, and the account was exclusively used for edits to the article here, its talk page, and his own talk page. So WP:DUCK on that one. Still holding back on a G4, though, as there have been additional edits. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt since the issue appears to be that the article keeps being recreated with no new evidence of notability. —Nizolan ^(talk) 01:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Clearly a local con with limited audience attendance. Only held twice, and not in the last 6+ years so there isn't exactly much chance it will suddenly be revived. No legitimate reason for re-creation after 3 previous afd's.SephyTheThird (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a pinch of salt - Seriously, an attendance of only 300 for a single con? That's tiny. By comparison, the cons I've been to have had attendances of at least a few thousand per day (and each con was two or three days long) as opposed to the entire event. And coverage for this now-defunct con is also tiny. Given that it's been recreated many times for apparently spammy reasons, it should be time to salt it as well. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to show it is a notable convention when attendance for local events like a high school musical or art/wine festivals easily exceed that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt This has already proven twice to be a non notable convention, no need for it to keep popping up if nothing has changed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as not only are there no convincing signs of keeping and improving, there's nothing to suggest there will ever be better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 1 April 2016 (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.