Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anime Revolution

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. Will userfy on request. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Revolution

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

Non-notable event. Three refs no in-depth coverage between them and the only independent one is this which is a database entry. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is pretty much a case of WP:TOOSOON. The convention has only been held once, and aside from the sources on the article there just isn't a huge amount of coverage of this convention in any independent and reliable sources. The three sources so far don't show a depth of coverage for the convention and I don't think that it has notability enough at this point in time to warrant having its own article. It could well be that this convention eventually becomes notable but I think it was jumping the gun a little to add it so soon. It looks like it did relatively well to get even three sources, as most anime conventions fly under the radar and go without any real notice, and there's always the possibility it could become notable in the future. It's just not there yet. I have no problem with the original editor userfying a copy of the article if she were interested in sticking around and incubating this. I do want to warn her about ensuring to write the article in a neutral and encyclopedic tone, as the article was sort of written in a promotional light. You don't really need to name all of the sponsors for the group unless the teaming up was very notable, such as if it were to be sponsored by Pepsi or Taco Bell. Also, try to avoid primary sources since they can't show notability and can only back up trivial stuff. AnimeCons.com can only back up trivial things at best, as it's really only a routine listing of conventions. The coverage there is usually provided by the anime conventions themselves, so it's pretty much a primary source for lack of a better comparison. I recommend getting some help through WP:ANIME, as they can help show you which sites are considered notable as far as manga and anime go.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't seem to be enough reliable coverage at this time to warrant an article. Maybe if there is Anime News Network coverage somewhere, then it could be notable. Too soon, perhaps? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see a press release and a notification that they've confirmed some guests, but nothing really in-depth. I see the ANN mention as more of a trivial source than anything else since it's so brief. It's sort of close to being notable enough for inclusion and if they hold it again next year, I'd go so far to say that it'd be almost guaranteed to pass notability guidelines if they get even one more news article about them. My only concern is that this is all fairly light to say that it absolutely passes notability guidelines and there's no guarantee that the convention will be held next year. A good example of "guaranteed to" is Twicon. The convention had its serious issues but they were already planning the next convention by the end of the first one, which never actually came about for various reasons. Twicon got lots of other coverage, of course, but it's a good example of a convention that seemed very likely to have a second year that didn't. Although if we could get at least 1-2 more RS then I'd be willing to change my vote.

Comment. I'm neutral on this article because the edits have made it much better, but not entirely sure its noteworthy as of yet. Would also agree with the userfying of an copy of the article. Esw01407 (talk) 18:31, 8 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.