Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taiyou Con

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. Kurykh (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taiyou Con

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

Lack of reliable sources aside from several Phoenix New Time articles. Rest are fansites, voice actors personal websites, or blogs. Esw01407 (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - While I could find several sources, most are local in nature, and the rest are promotional material or sites of questional reliability. No prejudice against recreation if future iterations receive more coverage.
csdnew 04:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

csd new 04:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

csd new 04:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

csd new 04:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Weak develop, maybe This con seems to get regular coverage by Phoenix New Times, which is good, but not nationally, other than that it gets mentioned by ANN that it is happening. It doesn't appear that ANN is sending any reporters there to summarize events. It's only after having to dig around that it has recently (like 2016 and 2017) attracted some of the big seiyuus from Japan such as
Yuko Sanpei and Akemi Kanda; attendance is about 1500 increasing to 3200. However, I wouldn't keep this if most of the anime industry doesn't really care about using this convention for promoting anything. I only see one person from Viz Media who regularly attends, and have no idea who the other sponsors are. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Passing coverage isn't enough for notability here. If someone wants to Userfy the page, I would not be opposed to that per
WP:REFUND. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2017 (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.