This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I was informed that there were attempts to add attendance information, but the claims were unsourced and the content was disputed. Attendance should/must be sourced in order to be added and if it's contested, the contesting editor has every right to remove the posts. The best thing to do here is to find sourcing that backs up the claims and discuss this on the talk page.
I also kind of hate to point this out, but the article could also use more sourcing to assert notability because offhand the sourcing looks to be almost entirely primary. AnimeCons.com is considered to be a routine database listing and it's not difficult for a con to get included, so it's not seen as a notability giving source. The mascots section also needs cleaning since it's written in an in-universe style. The only non-primary or routine source is this link, which looks to go to a small community newspaper. I'm not really sure that the source would be considered all that strong on Wikipedia and offhand it's certainly not enough to keep the article on that basis alone. This really, REALLY needs stronger sourcing or it would be at risk of someone putting it up for deletion. I'm not going to, but I'd be remiss if I didn't voice this concern. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I was informed that there were attempts to add attendance information, but the claims were unsourced and the content was disputed. Attendance should/must be sourced in order to be added and if it's contested, the contesting editor has every right to remove the posts. The best thing to do here is to find sourcing that backs up the claims and discuss this on the talk page.
I also kind of hate to point this out, but the article could also use more sourcing to assert notability because offhand the sourcing looks to be almost entirely primary. AnimeCons.com is considered to be a routine database listing and it's not difficult for a con to get included, so it's not seen as a notability giving source. The mascots section also needs cleaning since it's written in an in-universe style. The only non-primary or routine source is this link, which looks to go to a small community newspaper. I'm not really sure that the source would be considered all that strong on Wikipedia and offhand it's certainly not enough to keep the article on that basis alone. This really, REALLY needs stronger sourcing or it would be at risk of someone putting it up for deletion. I'm not going to, but I'd be remiss if I didn't voice this concern. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)