Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy Con

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
BAD BOY! NO COOKIE!
NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. The arguments are all here below; I don't really have anything to add. There's sufficient verification that the entity exists. Is it notable? I don't know, but enough editors seem to think so to prevent its deletion. No cookie for Eερ² for going a bit over the top here. Herostratus 16:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Con

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

Completely and utterly non-notable. A google search returned fewer than 1000 results (many of which had absolutely nothing to do with the convention), and several Lexis Nexis searches returned results in the single digits, and none of those were actually about the convention. The google search returned no reliable sources (since there were so few results I had the ability to look through the results and look for reliable sources). Because there are no reliable sources covering this event, the convention fails WP:N. Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If SlimeCon (about a circa 2002 convention about some 1980s TV show) can be on Wikipedia, Conspiracy Con can, which is about things FAR older than the 1980s... And if Abbott's Get Together, a magic con since the early 1900s with only 3 references can be on Wikipedia, Conspiracy Con with *8* refs... And there are also numerous other conventions in category:conventions that don't have ANY references at all... -Eερ² (t|c) 23:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid justification to keep. Since this convention has occurred six times (as alleged in the article) there should be a LOT more reliable media coverage if this were truly noteworthy. A bunch of cranksconspiracy theorists gathering once a year to discuss ZOG, Orbital Mind Control Lasers, and the Mena Airport MK Ultra, The New World Order, and reptilians is not something that needs to be documented in Wikipedia. Horologium talk - contrib 03:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're biased. Remember WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL. Alleged technology is indeed a notable topic of inclusion in Wikipedia--especially considering all the alleged tech already present on Wikipedia; forums that discuss it are just as notable. --Eερ² (t|c) 03:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are also biased, as you are the creator and primary contributor to the article under discussion. I withdraw my comment about "cranks" and the three sarcastic topics, as I didn't mean to insult any of the editors personally (note change to above comment.) However, I stand by the rest of my comments. Horologium talk - contrib 04:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even know what Mother Jones magazine is? It is notable ... J. D. Redding
Why yes, yes I do. World Net Daily is about equal to Mother Jones for NPOV balance. Horologium talk - contrib 04:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I nominate that comment for deletion on the grounds of no reliable sources... :) -Eερ² (t|c) 05:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it HAS been covered by more mainstream press, as indicated above. Yes, it's relatively new, but older than several cons listed in Category:Conventions (and subcats). Yes, it's about conspiracy, but there have been MANY UFO cons that also deal with conspiracies since the mid-20th century too. Why aren't you people targeting the cons with even less notability/references than this con? You claim there's no conspiracy yet I see a consistent pattern of AfDs on conspiracy-related material occurring recently; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal for a list. -Eερ² (t|c) 03:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not the nominator, I do not know the nominator, and I have never interacted with the nominator prior to this AfD. If you feel the others are non-notable, submit your own AfD requests. This is not a discussion of the other cons, it is about Conspiracy Con. Horologium talk - contrib 04:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, Horologium, I at least give a chance for people to ADD references before mindlessly nominating a page for deletion. I actually DO research--and know how to use search engines. I got The Photon Belt restored after it was deemed "nonnotable bollocks" by the deleter and numerous "contributors" (lynch mob, more like it) who put in their quite biased 2 cents on the deletion nomination. I don't appreciate it when hours of work gets casually nominated for deletion so I give articles a chance--I'm bold (benevolent) like that, see... -Eερ² (t|c) 05:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point about media coverage is that if it's six years old, it's not new, and should have more coverage from real sources. The only sources that are (marginally) valid are Mother Jones and Studio 360. Horologium talk - contrib 04:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, that's 2 more marginally valid/notable sources than most of the other conventions on Wikipedia. I must've applied Template:Unreferenced to about 30 convention articles so far... :) -Eερ² (t|c) 05:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How don't Mother Jones and Studio 360 assert notability? I often find people on these deletion nomination pages throw these terms around but fail to provide specifics/details as to what they really mean--if they even know... -Єερ² (τ|c) 06:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This one is easy to answer: Mother Jones does not assert notability, because it is nonsentient. It does not assert anything. However, the article in question ought not be referenced to "assert notability" because in it the author simply talks about having attended the Con. He doesn't give any reason why the Con is notable. In fact, he spends about as much time talking about Madonna as the Con in the article. If someone wrote an article in Mother Jones about their childhood lemonade stand, would that make the lemonade stand notable? Charlie 08:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the article describes the author's comparison of his "front row bitches" feeling at a Madonna concert and then again at Conspiracy Con (where he was asked to speak). Reading comprehension would help... You DO know who Bill Santiago (the author) is, right?[1][2]--you know, the one on Comedy Central[3] and his own IMDB entry... But, hey, keep trying to redefine "notability", eh? -Єερ² (τ|c) 08:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not sourced? I have given a few secondary sources. -Єερ² (τ|c) 06:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and why would you add this if you don't think it's notable/sourced? -Єερ² (τ|c) 07:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That reference is from the Conspiracy Con website itself Eep. The quote I put into the article adds some more information but doesn't establish notability for the article as a whole - that has to come from independent third party sources. Nick mallory 08:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I've already given at least 3 notable 3rd-party/secondary sources (without the alleged non-notable Mother Jones source), Nick. -Єερ² (τ|c) 08:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is neither spamcruftwhatever (an essay) or a soapbox. Try again, oh vague and biased one. -Єερ² (τ|c) 07:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Coast to Coast AM references; hardly "completely and utterly non-notable"--learn how to search websites that are notable within the field of conspiracy. -Єερ² (τ|c) 07:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This habit of calling anyone who disagrees with you 'biased' doesn't help your case Eep. Nick mallory 08:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do your biased comments help your case, Nick. I've already established notability with 3rd-party/secondary sources. If you people can't see this, you're freakin' blind and oblvious to WP:N. -Єερ² (τ|c) 08:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's up to the Wikipedia community to determine a consensus about the notability of this article Eep, not for you to simply assert it and ignore the opinion of almost everyone else. I think you mean 'too' rather than 'to' in your last sentence by the way. It's hard to be sure though. Nick mallory 10:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And now a reference from Salon.com[4]--notability noted. Next... -Єερ² (τ|c) 09:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Sigh. This article barely mentions the Con, only to say that an author (also barely mentioned) was speaking there. How exactly does this article confer notability? You have been very critical of others' reasoning in this debate, but have offered little of your own besides posting links, and declaring editors with views different than yours "freakin' blind and oblvious". Charlie 09:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I've already established notability of this con more than, oh, just about every other con in Wikipedia (which tend to not have ANY references, let alone the amount I have). Want another one? OK: Archive of Extremist Events by State: 2002, (Anti-Defamation League). Are you convinced yet? Didn't think so... <eyeroll> -Єερ² (τ|c) 09:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't said I'm not convinced of the Con's notability. What I was objecting to was your continued propping up of sources, and the anti-defamtion league source is no exception, that only mention the con in passing. The Notability Guideline calls for "significant coverage" in sources, where that "means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." I think it is a bit disingenuous to use sources that do not contain significant coverage, and then claim your opponents in the debate are ignoring the sources you've provided, or that they do not understand the notability guidelines. Charlie 10:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, Charlie, that even with the more notable sources that DO go into much more detail about the con and the writer's experience there, apparently they're not valid--even if written by a Comedy Central comedian who also did a show in HBO. Go figure. Sorry, but I feel mention in non-conspiracy forums like Salon.com, Metro Newspaper, and other sources makes the con more notable than many others--especially 90% of the ones on Wikipedia that have no sources or only primary sources! I've spent HOURS sourcing Conspiracy Con--it IS notable and if you people aren't going to do the research yourself (at least visit the freakin' links and actually READ the articles fully), you aren't qualified to comment on the subject's notability--PERIOD! Put up or shut up. I tire of having articles I've spent hours/days on be mindlessly nominated for deletion just because someone doesn't feel it's notable after they're piddly attempt to research the article. -Єερ² (τ|c) 20:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You need to stop with the assumptions of bad faith. It's getting old. Pablo Talk | Contributions 22:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Eep, why are you lumping me in with this "you people" group that doesn't want to follow your links or do research? I have read all of the articles you have linked to, and all I have said is that some of them only briefly mention the Con. Charlie 22:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eep, I am a little tired of your immediately assuming bad faith on my part (and obviously that of others, considering your rather intolerant and intemperate responses to those who disagree with you). I think there are some serious WP:OWN issues on your part in reference to this article. The links you have provided are not sufficient to justify using them as references. Simple mention of the con does not convey notability, and of Mother Jones, Studio 360, and Coast to Coast AM, the Studio 360 link is the only one that is possibly notable, as the first 2:40 of an 11 minute audio file deals directly with the con (the rest is an interview with an author who appeared at one of its iterations). The MoJo article does not convey notability; in fact, the tone is rather denigrating and dismissive, and the three Coast to Coast refs simply mention that three authors had been at Conspiracy Cons; they are not discussions of the Con. The Salon link mentions talking to two people at the con, but does not say anything about the con, which is needed to use it as a reference. And I really don't think you want to use the(perfunctory) ADF link as a ref, since that brings in all sorts of possible ways to expand the article in ways you probably don't want. However, many of the links you have dug up might be useful to flesh out the articles on the various authors cited in the articles, since they are the focus of most of the writing, not the con. Horologium talk - contrib 02:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Con-Con has been referenced repeatedly on Coast to Coast AM, particularly in regard to notable people who either are or have spoken there (their presence lends it notability, just like a science symposium would be if it was attended by Einsteins etc). This clearly demonstrates the notability of the event, and the fact that it has become notable in popular culture. As for reliable sources, it's a convention about conspiracies held by people who believe in conspiracies so it is only natural that it will be primarily be referenced in conspiracy sources. This is perfectly OK as all we are doing is referencing the existence of the conference, about which there is absolutely nothing redflag. More reliable sources would only be required if, for example, we were trying to prove that it was the world's biggest, or that it was being targeted by the CIA or something similarly extraordinary. - perfectblue 12:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per media coverage by Studio 360 ([5]) and Metro ([6]), plus treatment in Mother Jones ([7]) and mention by Salon.com ([8]) and Coast to Coast AM ([9] [10] [11]). Tim Smith 19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. From what I've been reading, the Metro and the Salon.com references can be counted as reliable sources. Coast to Coast AM definitly fails NPOV, and it portraits a lot of original research. Also, even though Mother Jones is a reliable source, the article of the reference is written by a comedian who took part in the convention, so that specific article cannot count as a reliable source. I vote for a keep because it has two strong reliable sources and because the fact that an article has few sources doesnt mean that it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legion fi (talk • contribs)
The Coast to Coast AM refs are only to show notability in the field of conspiracy-related forums, in this case a radio show. Simply the amount of conspiracy-related people who talk at Conspiracy Con makes the con notable enough, without even having to reference it in secondary sources. -Єερ² (τ|c) 11:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated. I did my own Google search to be sure and it appears that the subject has very little following. I did a Google search for the founder Brian William Hall and came up basically empty. [12] It doesn't warrant an article. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 04:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, do you even know how to do a proper Google search? First of all, learn how to use quotation marks: try "brian william hall". Second, you also need to try brian hall "conspiracy con" (which brings up even more notable sources: Interviews with Jerry Pippin: Brian Hall, ZoomInfo Web Profile: Brian Hall, UFO Magazine Volume 22, Issue 4: Conspiracy Con: Whys and Why Nots by Brian William Hall, Conspiracy buffs don't let 'them' get in way of convention, (Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal, Danek S. Kaus, May 17, 2002). -Єερ² (τ|c) 11:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been consistently rude to others throughout this AfD. I would appreciate it if you would stop. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 17:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate if people would stop AfDing articles I've created and/or spent hours researching, which I consider to be QUITE rude, thank you very much. Take a look into the mirror, hypocrite. Why pick a convention that has FAR more credibility than most others on Wikipedia COMBINED (which have NO references)? -Єερ² (τ|c) 18:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop creating articles that deserve to be AfD'd. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up other conventions, the other conventions aren't up for AfD here. Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I'm not; the articles I create don't deserved to be AfDed--that's just it; and I tire of overbearing Wikipedians (psst, that's you) who think an article doesn't deserve to be in Wikipedia just because it hasn't made mainstream media attention. Sorry, but there IS an underground out there, you know--or perhaps you don't...wake up already, eh? ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 18:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing position to Neutral. I don't think the refs are worth the photons with which they are displayed, but there are enough of them in reliable sources to establish the existence of the Convention. I tend to be deletionist, but in this case, I can support either position, although if kept it is going to need a lot of work to wikify it. Horologium talk - contrib 21:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of work--Who spoke and the topics of each con? ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 00:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps losing some of the less-credible sources entirely (the number of sources is not the issue, it is the quality of some of those sources.) Reorganizing the information into separate, discrete sections. Dropping the red-linked speakers; if they aren't notable enough to have articles, they probably should not be listed. (On a related note, the link to Jennifer Greene is to a Michigan-based romance novel writer; I don't think she is the person who spoke at the convention.) Explain why the infobox lists both San Jose and Santa Clara as sites for the con, when the article itself mentions only Santa Clara. Use some of the weaker links as "Additional Info" links at the end of the piece, rather than trying to use them to substantiate the narrative portion of the article. Your suggestion of arranging authors and topics by convention year is a good idea; it would certainly help expand the article. If any of the conventions had a specific focus or concentration, that could be noted. If anyone has public domain/free use photos of one of the conventions, they could be added to the article. These are just a few ideas; there are undoubtedly more and better ones out there. And yes, I do realize that the article is a stub, but you asked what work needed to be done on it. Horologium talk - contrib 02:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A place where notable speakers go to have an audience can be notable on that grounds alone. I'd suggest that the red links may be more useful in identifying people who might need articles--except of course for misidentifications.DGG 04:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The Salon mention would be a good source, though I looked through it and Conspiracy Con only gets mentioned briefly on page five. The Mother Jones article doesn't really argue much for any sort of notability. Most of the other alleged sources on the page are quite unreliable by Wikipedia standards and should be deleted... but then the fact that the current article needs cleaning up doesn't mean that it needs deleting. Some notable nuts speak there, it's gotten enough independent mainstream coverage to meet Wikipedia's notability standards, so the argument to delete just isn't there, in my opinion. DreamGuy 06:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for the suggestions, everyone. It's this kind of discussion I wish would occur before an article is nominated in order to give time (at least a week) for the article to be better sourced and "fleshed out"--especially if newly created, as this one was/is. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 06:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vague, as usual. Be specific. Research the subject. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 03:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the notability of conventions has not been directly addressed by our current guidelines, I would be surprised if, when developed, this particular convention warranted an entire article. Since it functions at the direction of one particular individual, any useful content can be relegated to his article (if he meets the criteria for WP:BIO). --ScienceApologist 16:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Brian Hall doesn't run the entire con; he just produces it. There is another con in the SF Bay Area that Hall is a part of, the Bay Area UFO Expo[13], which I will also be creating an article for eventually. These conventions have far more notoriety, notability, and credibility, than 90% of the other conventions listed on Wikipedia (which have NO references--not even original sources). ConspiracyCon has been featured enough to make it notable--especially since it's not even that old of a convention. Unless you can cite specific examples of how this convention doesn't meet notability, I do not think all of these deletion votes are warranted--especially when there are SO many other conventions without sources at all. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 03:39, 23 May 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Conspiracy_Con&oldid=1137732359"