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 convention has been operating for over thirty years, with multiple guests each year. The convention is a volunteer-ran organisation, and is the premier volunteer ran science-fiction literary convention in Chicago. The history, combined with average yearly "warm-body" attendance between 970-1120 each year and a notable list of guests, I would suggest that this convention's page should remain published and publicly viewable. As a further discussion point, do we - as a community of editors - have a list of standards to comprise "notable"?
Lady Nhytefall (
talk)
00:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Lady_Nhytefallreply
Amazing Stories source is not independent, writer was asked to participate in a panel there, he accepted it and wrote about the experience. WGNTV isn't signifiant coverage, basically a notice that the convention is going on. Ten Wing Media, maker of "The Con Men", doesn't seem very well-known, established, or popular (many of their "Con Men" videos struggle to get even a thousand views). Looks like it is made up of only three people. Not that any one of these disqualifies it (not sure if any do), it's just that with all the factors added together I don't think it could be used to establish notability. Podcast looks like an interview with someone at Capricon, not specifically about Capricon, I also don't think a "Functional Nerds" podcast can be used to establish notability. Chicago Now is a user generated blog style site, not a reliable source.
Rainbow unicorn (
talk)
03:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't see attendance size mentioned in that essay if that's what you meant. And ~1000 attendance events aren't that rare. Highschool/college level sporting events, opening of large, seasonal parks/facilities, and even some peoples' birthday parties could regularly get 1000+ attendance, yet most aren't considered notable here.
Rainbow unicorn (
talk)
19:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep, although I think I do see why the nominator believes otherwise. The difficulty that I have in deleting this article is that the
List of science fiction conventions points us to a whole lot of conventions, most of them at sub-national (i.e., regional or local) levels. Sure, I know that "other stuff exists" is not a compelling argument, but what we have here is so much other stuff of the same nature that it begins to look like a consensus to have these sorts of articles. And this particular convention has been around for a long time, with a guest list that includes top-shelf authors in the genre (meaning that my opinion might have been different if this were one of the articles about small local conventions). Rainbow unicorn, how would you feel if the introduction was pared down to remove the fluff and the article was re-classed as a "list" article? I don't mind during the grunt work on that, if there is a consensus that this is the way to go.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
19:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm fine with that if you and others believe it should be kept. This one may be towards the side of being notable but there are some smaller and/or not as old ones on that list that are more likely not.
Rainbow unicorn (
talk)
22:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I agree with your take on some of the other conventions on the list. You and I would probably find ourselves on the same side of the fence for some of the small, local ones. As for the matter at hand -- I'll get to work on cleaning up the instant article, but I'll probably not have anything done until tomorrow. If you like the way it looks as a list article, perhaps the nomination can be withdrawn at that point.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
23:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep, but about as weak a keep as one can give. Seems to barely meet
WP:GNG, primarily because of tenure. It is a bit "listy," though, and verifiable sources are pretty thin. I don't have really strong feelings one way or another about this one, frankly.
Realkyhick (
talk)
20:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Capricon has many features which set it apart from other conventions which can, and should, be included in the article, ranging from its inclusion of a series of hoax panels (which have engendered some controversy) its historical relationship to Windycon. They just need to be added to the entry with appropriate sourcing.
Shsilver (
talk)
19:24, 10 November 2015 (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.
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 convention has been operating for over thirty years, with multiple guests each year. The convention is a volunteer-ran organisation, and is the premier volunteer ran science-fiction literary convention in Chicago. The history, combined with average yearly "warm-body" attendance between 970-1120 each year and a notable list of guests, I would suggest that this convention's page should remain published and publicly viewable. As a further discussion point, do we - as a community of editors - have a list of standards to comprise "notable"?
Lady Nhytefall (
talk)
00:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Lady_Nhytefallreply
Amazing Stories source is not independent, writer was asked to participate in a panel there, he accepted it and wrote about the experience. WGNTV isn't signifiant coverage, basically a notice that the convention is going on. Ten Wing Media, maker of "The Con Men", doesn't seem very well-known, established, or popular (many of their "Con Men" videos struggle to get even a thousand views). Looks like it is made up of only three people. Not that any one of these disqualifies it (not sure if any do), it's just that with all the factors added together I don't think it could be used to establish notability. Podcast looks like an interview with someone at Capricon, not specifically about Capricon, I also don't think a "Functional Nerds" podcast can be used to establish notability. Chicago Now is a user generated blog style site, not a reliable source.
Rainbow unicorn (
talk)
03:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't see attendance size mentioned in that essay if that's what you meant. And ~1000 attendance events aren't that rare. Highschool/college level sporting events, opening of large, seasonal parks/facilities, and even some peoples' birthday parties could regularly get 1000+ attendance, yet most aren't considered notable here.
Rainbow unicorn (
talk)
19:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep, although I think I do see why the nominator believes otherwise. The difficulty that I have in deleting this article is that the
List of science fiction conventions points us to a whole lot of conventions, most of them at sub-national (i.e., regional or local) levels. Sure, I know that "other stuff exists" is not a compelling argument, but what we have here is so much other stuff of the same nature that it begins to look like a consensus to have these sorts of articles. And this particular convention has been around for a long time, with a guest list that includes top-shelf authors in the genre (meaning that my opinion might have been different if this were one of the articles about small local conventions). Rainbow unicorn, how would you feel if the introduction was pared down to remove the fluff and the article was re-classed as a "list" article? I don't mind during the grunt work on that, if there is a consensus that this is the way to go.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
19:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm fine with that if you and others believe it should be kept. This one may be towards the side of being notable but there are some smaller and/or not as old ones on that list that are more likely not.
Rainbow unicorn (
talk)
22:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I agree with your take on some of the other conventions on the list. You and I would probably find ourselves on the same side of the fence for some of the small, local ones. As for the matter at hand -- I'll get to work on cleaning up the instant article, but I'll probably not have anything done until tomorrow. If you like the way it looks as a list article, perhaps the nomination can be withdrawn at that point.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
23:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep, but about as weak a keep as one can give. Seems to barely meet
WP:GNG, primarily because of tenure. It is a bit "listy," though, and verifiable sources are pretty thin. I don't have really strong feelings one way or another about this one, frankly.
Realkyhick (
talk)
20:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Capricon has many features which set it apart from other conventions which can, and should, be included in the article, ranging from its inclusion of a series of hoax panels (which have engendered some controversy) its historical relationship to Windycon. They just need to be added to the entry with appropriate sourcing.
Shsilver (
talk)
19:24, 10 November 2015 (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.