Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stellarcon

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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stellarcon

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

Non-notable convention. There is nothing in the article that establishes why this convention is important or what makes it stands out from all the others. Wikipedia is not a Directory. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as nominator is mass-nominating a long list of science fiction conventions with the same cookie-cutter rationale, not grounded in facts or policy, without regard to content or sourcing (plus List of science fiction conventions), apparently as a result of this discussion. Notability is not a competition to "stand out from all the others". - Dravecky (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My same what now? You nominated 13 articles for deletion in 19 minutes so while I'll assume in good faith that you thoroughly investigated each article, searched for sources, and worked to improve the article, as per WP:BEFORE, at less than 2 minutes per article nominated I do have to question how thorough any research might have been. It appears you're making a WP:POINT. - Dravecky (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep rates a mention in Amazing stories: Volumes 52-53 Isaac Asimov's science fiction magazine: Volume 14, Issues 4-6 (if it is good enough for Asimov it is good enough for me) Screenwriter's & Playwright's Market have a nice write up on it as well. Tentontunic (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one is more of a borderline case, and the article clearly needs better sourcing. But the nominator's rationale fundamentally makes no sense whatsoever -- if "not important" wwere grounds for deletion, we could reduce the size of Wikipedia by 99%; and "doesn't stand out" from a group makes sense only if there's a strong case to be made, which there isn't here, that members of the group are strong presumed not notable. As someone memorably, and acidly, commented a while ago, "no more notable than the average King of Spain" isn't a rationale for deletion, either. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Unscintillating (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2011 (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.