Talk:Senshi-Con

Alaska Low‑importance

	Alaska portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anime and manga: Conventions Low‑importance

	Anime and manga portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Conventions work group.

Attendance dispute

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)[reply]

I've replaced the sourcing tag on the article. What this needs right now are sources that are independent of the con and in a reliable source. AnimeCons.com is, at best, a routine database listing. It's not difficult for a convention to get into the database, as all they need to do is supply said information and have a web site. In other words, having a listing on AnimeCons.com does not mean that a convention is notable since the site has many cons that are so small that they are pretty much a glorified dealer's room in a high school auditorium. Also, the content is typically submitted by the convention themselves (or by a random user based on the convention's website) so the source is typically seen as a WP:PRIMARY source by many users. It's not the equivalent of a newspaper writeup where they would go into more depth about the convention, like this one. What we need are things like newspaper articles that discuss the convention. Be careful, as some news article are really just reprinted press releases or routine notification of events. Removing the tags from the article does not resolve the issue at hand. Like I said above, I'm not going to nominate this for AfD but just because I won't doesn't mean that another person might not stumble across the page and nominate it for deletion themselves.

I ended up re-writing the mascot section since that issue wasn't resolved. The thing to remember when writing about fictional characters is that it shouldn't be written like the characters are real people, nor should it contain a lot of indiscriminate data. There's some leeway for characters of long running game/anime/manga series, but generally speaking con mascots don't get the type of coverage or attention to warrant a long, lavish section that goes into their various attributes. Wikipedia only needs a general overview. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]