Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odyssey Con

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. MBisanz ^talk 04:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odyssey Con (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable SF convention. No significant coverage in reliable sources, including blogs and internet. Bongomatic 14:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have notified all of the editors who opined on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MatsuriCon of this nomination. Since there were no editors who though the article should be kept, I have not requested the opinions on anyone who has suggested keep on similar articles. I did point out in my notices on their talk page, however, that (unlike in the case of MatsuriCon), this AfD had an immediate keep suggestion added, and that the argument should be considered. Bongomatic 03:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What about these "Odyssey+Con"&btnG=Search&um=1&ie=UTF-8 Google news results? - Mgm|^(talk) 15:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Delete this is a regular event, fringe topic, but keep as per NOTPAPER. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the significant coverage in relable sources that are independent of the subject? Bongomatic 22:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Where's the reliable third party sources of notability? If anyone add faithful stuff, I can change my vote, but now, I can choose deletion. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm getting some interesting hits here. There appears to be some third-party coverage by at least two reliable sources. But I will state that WP:NOTPAPER is a bad reason to keep any article. --Farix (Talk) 03:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the Spanish language hits that are unrelated ("con" means "with"), they seem to be predominantly passing coverage in local news sources. I went through pages and pages of hits to see if there was anything that looked like significant coverage in reliable (non-local) sources independent of the subject and didn't find anything, but did not come up with anything. Happy to be proven wrong on this, but would like to see a specific reference cited rather than a search results page. Bongomatic 03:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:ORG, unnotable small local event. NOTPAPER is not a valid keep reason at all. As Bongomatic notes, it needs significant coverage in reliable sources that are independant of the subject (which excludes local papers as well). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't remember why I created the page, so I don't have any sources to back up the article. However, given that it is a local event, there probably will only ever be local coverage of it. If such local coverage exists, it would be significant and reliable as any local paper. -Dr Haggis - Talk 21:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable, yes, but not notable. If the event isn't covered outside of its city/county, it isn't notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly where in WP:NOTE is local coverage excluded? --Farix (Talk) 00:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its the same as with a WP:BIO - local coverage of a person is not sufficient for establishing notability. They are, in essence, not "third-party" as they are local and discussing local things. Reliable sources for details, sure, but not for establishing notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is a conflict between the notability guidelines since WP:NOTE does not exclude local coverage. Anything that passes the criteria of WP:NOTE should pass any other notability guideline. Remember that these guidelines are not suppose to trump one another, but can be applied in an either/or manner with WP:NOTE covering the most basic criteria. --Farix (Talk) 03:02, 15 January 2009 (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.