Jump to content

Talk:List of anime and manga conventions/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Anime conventions/cliches/idioms

why dont we do a list of "conventions" in anime, such as the tear drop on the head symbolizing frustration, or the snot comming out of the nose symbolizing sleep?

That kind of conventions? Good idea! But how to name the article?
What about anime cliches? Oh, and just to point out - Supanova (down in the Australian section) always used to be in Sydney in the first half of the year and Brisbane in the second, but this year (2005) scheduling conflicts caused them to swap around ... so that Sydney now has two anime conventions on consecutive weekends. 203.26.177.2 19:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps "anime idioms"? -- Seitz 00:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Classification

What makes an anime convention? Some of the ones on this list (Megacon, Necronomicon, Fandemonium, et al) are really more Sci-fi or multi-genre conventions. Do they belong on this list? And how should defunct events be handled?

I'd like to see defunct cons left on the list for historical purposes. However, they should be noted as such. --PDelahanty 23:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that defunct shows should have a place here. --echocharlie 22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that they should, but we should create a seperate section for defunct conventions and list them there, not with the active conventions. People will likely look at this article for which ones are coming up next, not for nostalgia. Also, we should direct sci-fi and multi-genre cons to the appropriate pages.
Lastly, we should determine some criteria for what ends up on this page, otherwise we're going to get swamped with dozens of one day, small, college-based cons. One person in particular has been trying to turn this into a catch-all for every con out there, and that's not what wikipedia is for.--み使い Mitsukai 21:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Just did a massive edit to clean up the list. We need to work on setting up a classification system before this happens again.--み使い Mitsukai 07:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I did come here for historical (nostalgia) information. I'm happy to see a subsection dedicated to past conventions. I think it's important to remember the history of anime conventions and how they led to current conventions. -- Seitz 00:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

New conventions

Recently, I've seen a bunch of new events added to the list which haven't occurred yet. I strongly believe that this list should be a list of anime conventions that have happened already, and not a calendar of what is yet to be. If a new convention listed here fails to materialize, it may currently get marked as a defunct convention when it never even got off the ground. Can we agree to adhere to the convention of not adding new conventions until after they have happened? --echocharlie 15:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it would be fair to not list an event just because it hasn't happened yet. Although some may not materialize, most of them do eventually happen. I don't think there would be any that get listed, don't happen, and get listed as defunct because nobody noticed that it never actually took place. Maybe future cons should have a notice at the top of their pages like future movies do. For example, CHiPs (film) has a notice saying that it's a future film and information is speculative. --PatrickD 04:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I would agree if it were clearly defined that this entry were a calendar of all anime conventions. But as a listing, it's a bit more unclear. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and I think we have to take that into consideration. Thoughts? --echocharlie 14:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
If they've got a website and defined times, sure. If they're just like, say, NeoAniCon, which is so far into the planning stages they don't even have dates or staff (thus, at the time of this writing, said article is AFD), then no.--み使い Mitsukai 21:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Kamikazecon doesn't exist anymore.

I noticed that there is no mention of Oklahoman anime conventions, yet Tokyo In Tulsa and IzumiCon have been going on for a few years and seem pretty successful. -- Minako-chan27 (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
This is not, nor is it intended to be, a complete list of conventions. To see what is required for a convention to be listed, check the "Notes" section for the list's criteria. —Farix (t | c) 03:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Mitsukai, are you upset?

I don't understand your tone in your reason behind the removal of TsubasaCon from the list of anime convention. It seems that you were a bit upset about its inclusion on the list after it was updated to include a proper wiki link. If the con was too small to be included on the list, you should have just said so and left it at that. But to complain about advertising when you had previously edited the entry on a previous is a bit much. --TheFarix 00:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What qualifies a convention for inclusion?

First, thanks to Mitsukai for clearing up the previous issue. But now I have a related question. Just what are the qualifications -- or if it hasn't already been established, what should be -- for a convention to be included on the list? Mitsukai mentioned on my talk page that TsubasaCon can be included on the list if it was the only or largest anime convention in the state. But can a small convention be included on just those grounds alone or should there be a higher standard that it should meet? --TheFarix 03:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, we really haven't decided that yet. The original author of the article noted that the page was meant for "some of the larger" conventions around the world, so I'm taking that to mean not every anime-related thing on the planet. What I've been trying to do is mainly use conventions that adhere to a 2-2-3 rule: they run at least two days, they have at least two thousand attendees, and they've been around for at least three years. That's a rough average based on what I've seen for cons at Anime-cons.com. If someone else has got a better idea, I'm all for it - I just don't think that we need to bury the list in things like "WonderOtakuGeekFestORama Anime Dance and Yu-Gi-Oh Tournament (first one, Comicville Comics, Nowhereville, AR)"--み使い Mitsukai 04:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of which, we seem to be in a fight with one of those "flash in the pan" cons.
But how is this for basic criteria? We use the 2-2-3 rule with exceptions being made for conventions where they are the largest or only convention in that state. Also, having a Wikipedia article should also be a basic requirement, that way the external links can be removed and hopefully that will make the list less of an advertisement platform.--TheFarix 23:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fair enough, though I'm hoping that we get some other opinions on this - I don't think we should be the only two deciding this one.--み使いMitsukai 13:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this should be anounced over at the Anime and manga WikiProject for their comments.--TheFarix 00:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like an idea.--み使い Mitsukai 01:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to the 2-2-3 rule, but I think the exceptions are somewhat arbitrary. I don't think we should be obligated to list, as an example, a small first-year 2-day event just because it's the only game in town. The goal of the page is to list some of the largest events, not to ensure that each state gets equal representation. Echocharlie 22:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the exceptions are important. I know (as a founder of No Brand Con) that I may not be the most neutral voice in a discussion like this - but we're in a small town, and hitting 400 attendance was a pretty big deal for us in our fourth year. NoBrandCon is established and financially stable though - and I think that small conventions like ours that are established are fairly important. Also, this sort of listing shows a variety in the types of conventions. I actually know quite a few people (myself included) who refuse to go to larger cons just because we prefer the feel of cons that are under 500 in attendance. Traegorn 02:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Understandable, which is why we are making some exceptions for certain cons that don't meet 2-2-3. For example, TsubasaCon I don't think has even broken 1000 yet, yet it's on the list because it's the only one in its area (and possibly the state). So we are making some exceptions, we're just trying to prevent the list from being turned into this huge billboard mess.--み使い Mitsukai 02:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
TsubasaCon is on the working list but not on the current list. And yes, it is currently the only anime convention in the state. But getting back to the point, any criteria we set will to some degree be arbitrary. So the question shouldn't be is it arbitrary, but is it reasonable. I think it would be inappropriate to adopt with the 2-2-3 rules without making some room for exceptions. But instead of making those decisions completely arbitrary, a different set of criteria should be set.--TheFarix 12:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
State boundaries, while great for classification purposes, don't really reflect geographical proximities. Take the example of Sugoicon (OH) and Ikasucon (KY). These 2 conventions are in different states, but they are less than 10 miles apart. Ikasucon doesn't meet the 2-2-3 criteria, but since it falls into the category of being the only one in the state it's being considered for inclusion. But if I'm a fan living in Kentucky, it's likely that Sugoicon would be my first choice convention since it is a more established convention. Echocharlie 16:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Point taken, but do you have a workable alternate proposal for the exceptions clause?--TheFarix 22:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Any sort of geographical classification is going to end up being arbitrary - whenever you draw a border, something will be on one side of a region, while somethings will end up on the other. I think State lines for cons in the US are as good as anything to split things by, since they don't require additional explation - which makes it easier for the reader. People in Milwaukee know that Chicago is closer than Eau Claire, so I don't think people will really end up confused or anything. So - I vote for keeping things based on State. Traegorn 03:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Anime-Cons.com lists all conventions that have announced their dates, regardless of their size or how many years they have run. In fact, the creator of that website is the wikipedia user PatrickD who seems to be active here as well. --echocharlie 13:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
This is, however, not Anime-cons.com. This is an encyclopedia, not a convention listing and advertising site. And while I know Patrick is on this site, we are using a different criteria than that site does.--み使い Mitsukai 18:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I misread your earlier comment to mean that anime-cons.com uses this 2-2-3 rule. I see now that you just meant that you were using anime-cons.com data to form an average as the basis for this 2-2-3 rule. Apologies for the misunderstanding. It's worth mentioning that the average run-time for conventions is closer to 3 days and that in 2005 (the majority of anime conventions are 3-day affairs), the average attendance (using total attendance reported/number of conventions reporting) was well over 4000. The numbers are available in Patrick's Anime Convention Attendance spreadsheet. Echocharlie 19:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info update, but I think we might have to stick with 2-2-3 (or whatever the finalized criteria will be) in order to prevent the list from becoming too small (and thus risking AFD status). Besides, if we kept raising the bar, there are very few cons that can consistently top higher numbers than the average.--み使い Mitsukai 17:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's been over two weeks now since listing criteria were first discussed. Barring any objections to the current proposal, I will move the copy of this page in my sandbox here. All North American conventions marked as delete or not marked at all will be removed. All conventions with external links will also be removed. International conventions will be lest alone for now until we figure out if we should use different criteria for them.--TheFarix 19:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Anime no Kon

First and foremost, this list is not an advertisement platform. Wikipedia is not here to generate traffic to your convention's website. Nor is this list intended to be a complete list of conventions around the world. That's the job of Anime-Cons.com and A Fan's View. This list is a listing of "larger anime conventions in the United States and elsewhere around the world."

While we may be discussing what defines a "larger convention" in the topic above, Anime no Kon is a self-admitted, 8-hour " mini-con" and doesn't even comes close to meeting any of the suggested requirements for listing.--TheFarix 12:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


Disrespect for Anime no Kon

No, we were not going to use Wikipedia to advertise. ADV Films, the other Houston Cons, the University of Houston, and flyers did that job. I think its disrespectful that you would say that about our event. We had more voice actor talent show up than at O Chibi Con. We had the most active celebrity panels than many other Kons. Nowhere does this say that this is a list of larger conventions. Not only are disrespecting our Kon but you are disrespecting the largest and oldest Anime club in Texas.

By the way, Shiokaze doesn't qualify using the 2-2-3 rule, it hasn't even occurred yet. That's a double standard. The only reason I haven't deleted myself is that I'm good friends with the Con chair.

The very first sentence of the article, which has been there since the list was first started, states, "The following is a list of some of the larger anime conventions in the United States and elsewhere around the world."
Now above, we have been discussing some basic guidelines to determine which conventions can be listed, which shouldn't and when to make exceptions. We are waiting for more input from other members of the Anime and manga WikiProject before finalizing the guidelines. When a conscience is reached, the entire list will be reviewed to conform to the agreed guidelines. It has also only been recently that the list has been actively maintained. So for now, the 2-2-3 rule will be enforced on all new listings.
It doesn't matter how large or how old the anime club that organized the convention is or how many guests of honor attends the convention. That alone isn't enough to grant Anime no Kon an exception at this time. Conventions will be judged on their own merits. And it is not like Anime no Kon was the first convention to be delisted because of it being a short run or small convention.--TheFarix 03:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
      -Yet you allow a con that hasn't even occured for the first time yet on the list.
  • Mistakes happen. The editors here are human, and people make mistakes. Also, it was only until a fairly recent spate of constant "ad spamming" that this page was rarely watched. This may have been one of the pages that should have been removed, and as soon as we get confirmation from other editors regarding the proposed criteria, then any pages that do not fit said criteria will be removed.--み使い Mitsukai 05:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
We already know that the list needs to be cleaned up further. But before we do that, we need to develop criteria to determine which conventions can be on the list and which can't. If you wish to propose a different set of criteria then the one already being discussed above, then go right ahead. But just because the list had been a free-for-all until a month ago doesn't mean it will continue to be that way. There is no point in making the mess larger then what it already is.
Also, it doesn't help your case when you, or someone from the same IP, are the one responsible for deleting the entire contents of the page last Friday, which is considered vandalism.--TheFarix 13:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that might have been my bad...I've never edited before and I must have accidentally erased it. I suck at HTML...my bad...I didn't mean to do that if I did. Plus...isn't this a free encyclopedia in which anyone is allowed to edit what they deemed necessary. That's the point of this site. This is supposed to be everyone's encyclopedia...not just a few people who feel that they own the article.

We don't and never have owned the article, we are simply the ones who are on vandal and spam patrol in order to prevent in-article advertising - there are many pages here that have that criteria. And yes, while this is a free encyclopedia, bear in mind that encyclopedias require notability for articles; yours may not be notable under current or future guidelines. There are people who feel the anime articles on WP aren't notable at all, so don't feel that you're being singled out by this. If you feel the need to write an article about your con, by all means do so. Just be aware that it will likely not end up on this list if the criteria remains the same or until your con meets the standards for the page.--み使い Mitsukai 19:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
One of the biggest problems I see with the article in its current form is that it is replete with external links. That alone means that this article can be a candidate for an AfD for link spam. None of us actually wants that to happen. Now if we do remove the external links, except for the two in the External links section, that is going to mean that many conventions are going to get delisted.--TheFarix 21:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be possible then, since we can also write articles in Wikipedia, to write an article about shorter conventions? If the 2-2-3 rule is in effect for this list of conventions, then surely an article can be written for conventions which do not follow this rule? Just an idea... Because there's no sense in not letting people know what's going on.

Not necessarily, since the article would suffice as information. Additionally, with a secondary article of that nature, that reaches more towards ads, as well as what WP editors like to refer to as "fancruft". Again, we can't - and wouldn't, anyway - stop you from writing an article on your convention, but to create a listing for minor conventions to "[let] people know what's going on" sounds very much like both an ad and listcruft. In any case, your article would be listed at Category:Anime conventions, so there would still be a location for it to be found, and not simply "lost" amongst the other articles.--み使い Mitsukai 02:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
You could write an article about Anime no Kon all by itself. Just follow the wikilink and include enough information so that other editors can expand on it latter. Do stay way from language that seems to be advertising or it will get put up as an AfD by another editor. You can also include the Anime convention infobox which recently had an overhaul.
Let me restate, Wikipedia isn't a platform to let people know of your convention. That is what we call advertising. Nor should it be a PR platform (unfortunately, some of the convention articles do have this quality). Instead, the article should contain both good and bad information that couldn't normally be obtained through the convention's webpage. If someone comes along and puts information that would reflect badly on the convention or its staff but is otherwise true, don't just remove it! Instead, request a third party to review and copyedit it to achieve a NPOV.--TheFarix 03:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Do create a user account and signing your responses with ~~~~. It makes it much easier for us to know whom we are talking to.--TheFarix
Also, you have to have an account in order to create articles.--み使い Mitsukai 03:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Convention list cleaning

I did some cleaning of the list in my Sandbox. However, there are some conventions I am not sure if they should be kept or removed. Please mark conventions that meet the criteria and which ones you know don't. If there is a convention marked from removal, please make a case as to why this convention is significant enough to remain on the list.--TheFarix 02:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Made some notes and left them directly on the sandbox page. We may also want to revisit the 2-2-3 rule and see if applies for foreign conventions, as populations tend to be smaller and we may need to adjust for that. For example, Ayacon, in London (which doesn't have a page, curiously), is the largest animecon in the UK, but has never topped more than 1000 people and usually draws no more than 600. Hopefully, Patrick will way in on this one.--み使い Mitsukai 14:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
AyaCon 2005 had an attendance of ~1150 (AyaCon site). It ran at the Warwick Arts Centre at Warwick University. AyaCon has never run in or near London. ShimaKatase 13:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
That's fine; the London info I got from a friend who lives in the UK, so I took him at his word. As you can see, we're just trying to prevent this from becoming an advertising billboard.--み使い Mitsukai 13:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no argument that these two conventions shouldn't be on the list if they had wikipedia articles. That is one of the criteria for being included on the list. If you look below, you will see a list of conventions that need articles before they can be included. If you can help create articles for those conventions with enough verifiable information, then we appreciate.
On a side note, I encourage all international conventions to register with Anime-Cons.com and report their attendance figures to them. Since this is one of the sources I used to determine if a convention meets the criteria.--TheFarix 13:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a few major conventions that do not have wikipedia articles. Perhaps that is something that should be corrected.--TheFarix 15:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully, this time whoever does the one for Oni-con won't do an advertising-filled article that will get it AFD'd like last time. ^_^;;;--み使い Mitsukai 19:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Heh. There is another convention whose article reads like a press release (Tekkoshocon).--TheFarix 20:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I cleaned up the article to make it more neutral.--TheFarix 22:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Since the main problem in considering the 2-2-3 rule is the middle 2, is it possible there is a reasonable value that could be used as a proportion of the regional population? So, for example, a convention in a state with population 10,000,000 (say) needs attendance of 2,000, but one in a country with a population of 10,000 needs, um ... 2? OK, bad, bad example (although show me a country with that smal a population that holds an anime convention of any kind and I'll be impressed), but I'm sure there should be some kind of measure, or at the very least a condition of the kind "must have attendance of 500 or 1/10,000 the region's population, whichever is larger" that could work. It's far too late for me to calculate some kind of reasonable numbers, but hopefully the example shows what I'm trying to say. Confusing Manifestation 14:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Conventions needing articles

Deletion of Australian Cons

Just letting you know that the two cons that were deleted in the past week AI-Con and Wai-Con are the only conventions within their region, thus do comply with your criteria. Wai-Con in particular is heading into its third year, and is the only anime convention in Western Australia. AI-Con, while only just finishing its first year, is the only anime convention in Tasmania.

Plus considering the distance between these two conventions compared to the Eastern States (Wai-Con being on the complete other side of the continent, where AI-Con is a strait away), I feel that it would be relevant to include them. Bakaneko155 05:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's understandable, then. You'll have to forgive us the exact lack of knowledge of Australian sites and data. We're in over our heads trying to keep the US/CAN information correct; adding others only makes things even more hectic.--み使い Mitsukai 15:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The 2007 AI-Con committee has formed and is in the process of planning the 2nd con. Due to the great success the first one was there's no doubt that the 2nd will be even bigger and better. The biz 03:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Also I don't think the 2-2-3 rule works for Australia, unless the middle 2 becomes 200 not 2000, mainly due to our population size (it's less then a tenth of the USA, something like 6-7%) The biz 03:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The listed Australian Island Convention is actually named Anime Island Convention, check the text on the AI-Con page, in the discussion section there's also a proposal to move it back to AI-Con or even Anime Island Convention. The biz 00:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Once I get the AI-Con page back up I will add it back in here again, it now has run twice successfully and planning is underway for the 3rd one early next year ... also it's the only anime con in Tasmania, well pretty much the only con to have anything to do with pop-culture in Tas at all The biz 14:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Shiokaze Con

I deleted Shiokaze Con because it didn't qualify for being listed. It is still a first year con. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.151.128 (talk • contribs)

I also commented out the two other Texas cons because they don't have articles on wikipedia. Please do not uncomment those two conventions until after an article for them has been created. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

List of anime conventions → List of major anime conventions – Rationale: The current name is a misnomer as the page only lists a few major conventions for different places.-Giant89 23:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Oppose This list doesn't just contain major conventions, but several minor conventions when the criteria permits them. So the new name will be a misnomer. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Wait, why is the list limited by size to begin with? (or region if there is no large convention in that state/province) --Aknorals 02:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Farix can explain, he seems to be very protective of the standard(no offense meant).-Giant89 03:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You can see further up the page where I and a few other editors originally hashed out the criteria. When I first started on Wikipedia, this list was full of external links and was at risk of a AfD. Also, all lists should have some sort of listing criteria that is "clear, neutral, and unambiguous" according to WP:LIST. We also had to keep in mind that several lists have been put up for AfD using the argument that they replicate categories, something that we didn't want this list to do. Therefore we needed discriminating criteria which also allowed each region or country to also have a convention on the list, regardless of size.
Granted the current criteria isn't perfect, but it was the best we could come up with at the time with the limited input from other editors from WP:Anime. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Truly y'all, the only reason I chose major anime conventions is because thats what I thought of all the time. All I'd like is a change in title that reflects that its not an all encompassing list.-Giant89 03:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that we'll eventually have an editor come in and remove all of the small cons and the criteria that permits them to be listed based on the list's new name. And it has been a lot less hassle to maintain the list since I've summarized the criteria in the list's lead. Redlinks have been the biggest problem recently. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Otakon Attendence So-Called Prediction

I am not predicting simply go to Otakon's site and look at it it shows the amount of memberships still availabe. So this isn't a prediction this is an actual number --Jack Cox 03:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The convention still hasn't been held yet, so then number is still a prediction. The actual turnout may be higher or lower when the weekend ends. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Given that they had 3000 memberships still available as of 4pm Saturday (according to their web site), I think it's pretty clear they did not reach the 25,000 person attendance cap. --PatrickD 16:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I still think we should wait until an official announcement or a report is made to AnimeCons on the final total before Otakon are listed in the Top 10. But if it was completely up to me, I would spike the Top 10 sections in their entirety. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely. That section should be removed until 2006 is over. Those number are not accurate and misleading. For example, AWA hasn't even happend yet in 2006! --PatrickD 22:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the 2006 list for now. But I still think the 10 largest cons should not have a place on this list. Perhaps that is something that should go over into anime convention instead. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The removal of the 10 largest cons of 2006 detracts from this entry. That information was useful and interesting. Now I understand the controversy regarding Otakon projections and a need to let me users know that the list is tentative as the con "season" is ongoing and some have not been held yet. That would further improve people's understanding and allow for a apples to apples comparison with the 2005 list for the 10 largest anime conventions. But this removal impoverishes us all and spares of us important information.

On the 2005 top ten list, it says, "Such figures may be counting all people at the venue and not just paid attendance, possibly including guests, staffers, volunteers, 3rd party fan groups or panelists, and people not actually attending the event but sharing the space of the venue." This is not entirely true. When I gathered the numbers for AnimeCons.com's list, the conventions either supplied the number of paid attendees or the total number of warm bodies. In both cases, the number is for people with a badge. In no instance did the numbers quoted ever include "people not actually attending the event but sharing the space of the venue". In other words, the hotel staff and any other hotel guests walking through are not included. "Paid attendees" is simply the number of people who paid for a badge. "Total attendance" is the number of warm bodies (staff, volunteers, paid attendees, guests, dealers, etc) wearing a convention badge. I find "total attendance" to be the more accurate measure...since staff members, guests, and dealers are also enjoying the convention as well. I list both numbers on AnimeCons.com when they are available. (BTW: AWA2006 is the only hold-up for 2006's top ten list.) --PatrickD 06:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The 2006 list is now available: http://www.animecons.com/news/article.shtml/403 --PatrickD 23:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I added that remark as it is at least partially true that many conventions for whatever reason, though most obviously to pad their perceived size and importance, list or calculate attendance in a manner which may be what they think is most favorable to them, but not an accurate benchmark of the amount of membership it generates.
While not 'entirely true' of all conventions, many conventions are unwilling or refuse to release a 'sold badges' figure, whereas many conventions only calculate by sold badges, and some conventions in the last 5 years have been revealed to have been deceitful or secretive in how they calculate their 'total attendance,' including head counts of people that share the venue/hotel.
I respectfully disagree with you that "total attendance" is more accurate a measure of a convention's size as there is no accepted or agreed upon method or standard for 'total attendance.' There is, however, intellectual equity in stating paid attendance that is not really subject to the same amount of variation.
We may disagree with eachother on which is the more useful an equitable figure, but until each convention states with great specificity how they count 'total attendance,' I find it perfectly valid to leave the disclaimer as I put it. RCHM 00:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
If you would like, I could cite multiple sources for conventions that list a "total attendance" count and explain that it includes all badged people such as guests, staff, attendees, etc. (The topic comes up on the Anime Cons Mailing List quite regularly, but I don't think such citations would be necessary to include in the wiki page.) I have never seen any anime convention claim that "total attendance" included anyone who happened to wander through (hotel staff, other random people, etc.) (Although some have speculated that some conventions do that, there has never been any solid evidence beyond the speculation.) Also, the article cited as the reference says specifically that it is badged people...so as long as that article is used as a source, a disclaimer on the wiki page would not be correct if it claims such counts also include anyone without a badge. --PatrickD 06:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
yes, but I'm not sure what I typed registered with you. The point was that some conventions refuse to share how they decide to calculate "total attendance." Of course they haven't openly claimed hotel staff or other guests at the venue. The other point was that some conventions have been 'found out' that their numbers were quite bloated for reasons similar to this that they wouldn't fess up to. Kuni-kon is the most recent example, but there have been others. SOME conventions may explain their methods for total attendance, but to repeat, it can be and IS so variable on how its calculated that it bears mentioning that "total attendance" SHOULD be viewed with much higher scrutiny if its going to be listed at all. For you to convince me of otherwise, the "total attendance" figure must be an independantly verifiable standard/account with each of the conventions listed directly, something many of the shows just haven't done(listed here, or just have an article). Anything less is so nebulous and subject to interpretation that its verifiability becomes neigh impossible. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, and 'animecons.com' is not the ultimate authority on the subject or bears any independantly verifiable data unless it comes from the originating convention anyways. RCHM 17:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Pat, I'll deal with this in my next edit. I'm also going to remove the 2004 list as having three lists is just too much IMO. Now if only I can deal with the stubborn Anime South staffer. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Listing criteria

The deletion of SugoiCon from this list based on the arbitrary attendance criterion is appalling, and let me say why. SugoiCon has a consistent history of inviting significant professionals from Japan for their guests of honor. It's not something all conventions are capable of doing or, increasingly, seems to be interested is doing anymore. Here's a convention that's doing something significant and worthwhile.--75.31.58.115 08:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We have to have an objective and verifiable criteria to determine which conventions can be listed and which ones can't. Setting standards based on notability will result in a war over which cons are notable and which ones are not. After all, what it means to be notable can be a very subjective standard and often time subject to original research, bias, or both. Also, lists based on a subjective criteria are subject to deletion. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe that it is worth pointing out that SugoiCon has both existed much longer (6+ years) and is much larger (1300 attendance) than the only Kentucky-based convention in your list (OMG!Con which is also only in its first year of existence). SugoiCon in its current form has never been held in Ohio. While it would be inappropriate according to your criteria to have it listed as a large/noteworthy Ohio convention (as it is under 2000 attendees) it would also be generally inappropriate to even consider it as an Ohio convention at all. --64.253.104.108 00:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds more like a reason to remove OMG!Con from the list for its age instead of putting SugoiCon back on it. But that's what happens when the convention moves north of the Ohio River. If TusbasaCon did the same thing, it too would lose its place on the list. But if SugoiCon stayed in Kentucky, then it can be included on the list as Kentucky's largest anime convention. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

recent removals

Reasons why the following conventions were removed:

  • Chibi-Con: no wikipedia article, attendance can not be verify.
  • Minami Con: attendece never breaks 350 (according to AnimeCons.com). Two other convention in the UK are much larger.
  • OMG!Con: held first convention this year.
  • RealmsCon: will hold second convention next month, attendance can not be verify.

--TheFarix (Talk) 23:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional Recent Removals:

  • Anime Express - Have not seen any verification that attendance is past the 2000 mark required for listing in States that already contain 2k+ attendance conventions.
  • Youmacon - Hasn't held second convention yet (thus disqualifying already) and cannot verify attendance number as well (not to mention, an article beyond one line would probably be helpful)

Traegorn 04:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Youmacon has since been added, as a third convention is being planned, and is the only listed convention for that state. Traegorn 09:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Additionally...

Traegorn 09:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Genericon (in NY) a multi-genre convention? When a staff member submitted the 2007 con to AnimeCons.com, it was submitted as primarily "Gaming". [1] --PatrickD 17:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this was a failure at verification. The only thing we had to go by was the article, which stated that Genericon was an anime convention, and the listings from AnimeCons.com didn't make any distinctions. Also a quick look at their website gave the impression of an anime convention. --Farix (Talk) 18:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Another Anime Convention removed because the second convention isn't scheduled to happen until later this year. Incidentally, its New Hampshire heading was out of alphabetical order. Should be able to be included after third convention is announced (assuming the article survives AfD). ~ SeanOrange 05:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for new additions

  • Otakuthon: While it does last 2 days[1], had ~2k participants[2] and is in active planning for 2007[1], it doesn't quite meet the 2-2-3 rule: 2007 will be its second year. However, it should qualify as an exception: I believe it to be the only convention in the province of Quebec. Conventions "nearby" are: AC-Cubed (Ottawa, Ontario: 750 attendants in 2005, at 200km) and Anime North (Toronto, Ontario: ~12K(?) attendants in 2006, at 600km). -- Anonymous 4:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    (I moved this to the bottom of the page for clarity) They were sub-2k, but more importantly the entire reason for the having run two cons and planning a third portion of the rule is that so many conventions fall apart at this stage in development. The concern is for it's long term viability with that rule. Traegorn 20:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Anime South: It runs 3 days, is expecting 2,000+ in 2007, and is entering its third year. Also, it is the only anime convention in the northwest Florida/lower Alabama, eastern Mississippi region. Although that 290 mile radius may not seem like much, it's about the size of Texas, the largest state in the continental US. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.1.78.129 (talk • contribs).
    Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If Anime South has not yet reached the 2K threshold for multi-con states, then it can't be listed under the criteria. We can't use information that is based on predictions or speculation. --TheFarix (Talk) 17:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    Which is why I stated the region it is in. It falls under the exception rule for being the largest in a state; the region it encompasses is larger than the largest state in the contiguous United States. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.1.78.129 (talk • contribs).
    The last verifiable numbers show that both JACO and Metrocon are larger then Anime South and above the 2K threshold. So the exceptions clause doesn't apply here. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    Anime South is so far apart from the other conventions in the region, especially within Florida, that it could be considered part of this exception. The state-specific idea is too subject to geo-political boundaries and does not take into consideration radial distance. The closest major anime convention to Destin isn't even in the same state - it's two states away in Georgia (AWA). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.1.78.129 (talk • contribs).
    Please, don't engage in hyperbole. Both Georgia and Alabama are neighboring states to Florida. Also, geo-political borders were the most convenient way to divide up geographical areas without a lot of fuss. To quote Traegorn from above when we were establishing the criteria, "Any sort of geographical classification is going to end up being arbitrary - whenever you draw a border, something will be on one side of a region, while somethings(sic) will end up on the other. I think State lines for cons in the US are as good as anything to split things by, since they don't require additional explation(sic) - which makes it easier for the reader." --TheFarix (Talk) 12:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    Please, don't go down that slippery slope. Wikipedia should hold accuracy above readability. Georgia borders Florida in the east, not the northwest. The shortest distance to Georgia is through Alabama from northwest Florida. Northwest Florida is so far apart from the rest of Florida, it isn't even in the same time zone as any other Florida convention. If in fact we do go down this path, I recommend at least staying in the same time zone, although radial distance would be far more accurate.
    Actually, it's verifiability over accuracy. But how is it accurate to include a convention that has been verified to not meet any part of the listing criteria? Also, are you an Anime South staffer? --TheFarix (Talk) 20:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think you can use the basis of distance as a deciding factor to decide this. What if there becomes other instances of "but it's so much further away"? Is 100 miles far enough? 50 miles? Where do you draw the line for distance? There is already an explicit boundary stated in the rule and that is the stateline. Unfortunately for Anime South there are two other cons in the state that are larger which exempts Anime South from being listed in both the primary rule of having 2k+ attendees and the exception rule of being the largest in the state. --Squilibob 22:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    Anime South, as I have stated, is planning its third year and runs 3 days. It's expecting approximately 2,000 people in the its third upcoming year. It definitely meets 2 of the 3 criteria, with the 3rd criteria having no basis in historical fact. With the exception of Anime Boston (which we on the anime chairmen mailing list agree was an anamoly), none of the largest conventions had 2,000 attendees in its second year, and only 2 had that number by their third year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.63.22.57 (talk • contribs).
    Anime Boston's exceptionalness is irrelevant. As I said before, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We must use verifiable information, not someone's predictions. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    You have stated Anime South does meet "any part of the listing criteria". I have shown that it meets 2 of the 3 criteria that you have stated and the third criteria is not based on historical facts.
    It has to meet all three. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    The criteria is arbitrary, and therefore will be ignored.
    That's not how Wikipedia works. You should probably read up on it before you find your self banned. Start here: Wikipedia:Etiquette. --PatrickD 06:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, I've been down that banned road. Which is why I now follow this rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules (BTW, 'twas the Farix that put that numbers preface, not me - I actually thought about deleting it, but I've learned to fight one battle at a time for now)
    If you wish to change the criteria, then call for a RfC with WP:Anime. Until then, I will continue to maintain the existing criteria that had been agreed to by consensus in March 2006. But I don't see how advertising your con on this list falls under WP:IAR as it can only be invoked when maintaining or improving Wikipedia. The admins rejected a very similar argument with the Kigo article. And lastly, I didn't come up with the 2,000 number. That was Mitsukai and the rest of us who were discussing the criteria agreed to that number as the attendance threshold. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    I did not change the criteria. I worded it exactly as the so-called consensus called for. And I certainly don't see how just two people are allowed to set the agenda for an entire article merely because you two were "here first".
    There were more then just two editors participating in the discussion along with attempts to get more comments from WP:Anime. And stop removing the unreferenced tag and adding the clearly speculative date from the Anime South article. There are no citations on the article and the speculative date is just that, speculative. Speculative information is not allowed on Wikipedia (WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL) because it cannot be verified. Nor are articles on Wikipeda to be the mouth peaces of the convention. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

RealmsCon

Hey guys....I just thought I'd bring up Realmscon again. The third convention already has a date and location. The only thing keeping it off the list would be unverifiable attendance right?-Giant89 16:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I vote for its inclusion because this article is called "List of anime conventions", not "List of anime conventions that have at least 2,000 attendees, is planning/have had its third year, and runs at least 2 days unless it is the only anime convention in its state".
Stop being rediculous and start signing your posts please. As for RealmsCon, I'd ask what their attendance was, but their forums are broken. Their "Advertising" page says that they will print 2000 programs, which indicates that previous attendance was less than 2000...so no, this event does not currently qualify. --PatrickD 21:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Update: They had 1148 paid attendees in 2006.--PatrickD 21:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is a "list of anime conventions". No other listing of genre conventions on Wikipedia (gaming, furry, science fiction, comic book) has criteria to be placed in their respective articles, with the exception that they fit in that genre. This simple list appears to have been hijacked by editors with the sole purpose of advertising their conventions by including criteria that excludes other anime conventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.22.57 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 4 January 2007
No. The header makes sense. RealmsCon does fail the requirements to make it on the list.
  • Attendances of more than 2,000 persons (no)
  • Have been in existence for at least 2 years and is at least actively planning its third year, and runs at least three days (no)
  • The convention can also be listed here if the convention in question is the only anime convention in the state (US), province (Canada), or country in which it exists. (There are other conventions listed for that state).
Discontinue from adding that con please. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I just thought I'd bring it up again. I know theat the parameters give the list a sense of legitamacy. i was wondering how it doesn't meet the second requirement though. The convention has been held twice and the date is set for a third. It has lasted 3 days both years. I know that doesn't make up for the attendence req...i just thought that was odd.-Giant89 04:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Listings To Be Expanded

I am calling for the expansion of this list of anime conventions to include all anime conventions currently in existence. I would be willing to do all the work, if need be. If defunct anime conventions are on this list, certainly active conventions should be included, also. Kevin Lillard, in all likelihood a person who has attended more anime conventions than anyone else, once told me on the animecons mailing list that an anime convention is one whose focus is on anime, has a cosplay, and has a dealers room. I'd like to go with that qualification. Please note objections here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.1.73.33 (talk • contribs).

Let me say that your arguments would hold much more weight if you stopped posting anonymously AND started signing your Talk page additions. (I do know who you are.) Now that we've got that out of the way, I think that a complete list of ALL anime conventions is way too over-the-top for a Wikipedia entry. There are several reasons I feel this way and I'm sure others will offer more. First, consider that many anime conventions are so small that they're not even notable enough to have a Wiki page. I've seen several conventions have their pages deleted because they were too small. Second, there are a bunch of anime clubs that have gatherings they call "conventions"...these "Chibi Cons" or "Mini Cons" really don't belong here. They're often only several hours long and happen a few times a year. I don't even list those on AnimeCons.com. Third, there are a lot of conventions (probably far more than you realize) that announce themselves, put up a web site, and then never happen. Those really don't belong on Wikipedia at all. I think it's appropriate that conventions should have to prove themselves before they can appear on this list. Even though the title is "List of anime conventions", it is not "List of all anime conventions" and is not intended to be. While I could support the listing of any convention that is primarily anime, has already taken place twice, runs for at least two days, and has a confirmed attendance of 1000 people, there's just no way that I would support removing the restrictions completely. --PatrickD 21:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I really don't think I could have said it any better the Patrick. But I would like to add that the list was never intended to list all anime conventions from it's inceptions, just the "larger anime conventions in the United States and elsewhere around the world". But the list was never maintained and it became a magnet for link spam and was in serious risk of being put up for WP:AFD. It wasn't until February of last year when the question was ask, "what constitutes a 'larger' convention?" It was then that the 2,000 in attendance number was suggested and adopted, the two day minimum was adopted to eliminate most "school-cons" from the list, and having at least three conventions was adopted to ensure that the conventions listed were established conventions and to kept the list free of conventions that often collapse by their third year. The exception to attendance threshold was created in part to allow every state, province, and country to have at least one established convention on the list. And requiring a Wikipedia article was added as an alternative to the link spamming and allow the list to double as a navigational aid, per WP:LISTS.
But what you're suggesting is a return to the bad old days when the list was a free-for-all. Also, without the limiting criteria, the list becomes a duplicate of Category:Anime conventions and will be under risk of an AfD. I would prefer to avoid both of those. --Farix (Talk) 22:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Some of the best conventions I've attended have had less than 1,000 people. And it doesn't seem right to list zero anime conventions in Alabama when there are actually two (East Meets West and Persacon) merely because each had less than 1,000 attendees. I'd rather give out more information than necessary to inform just one more person than to withhold information for the sake of....I'm not really sure - why should there be a minimum? I'd like to list each one as they are announced because even Anime Boston with its blockbuster first year would not have been listed until after year 2 by this standard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.1.73.33 (talk • contribs).
You really need to read the criteria again. If you had, then you would know that we would have taken the one with the largest reported attendance under the exceptions clause—seeing that both are sufficiently long and old enough. Unfortunately, neither of them have articles. As for your comments that Anime Boston would not have be listed during its first two years despite is tall feet (pun intended), I don't think Patrick wouldn't have protested it. --Farix (Talk) 23:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Correct. ...and if I were to work with another brand new con (which seems very likely), I wouldn't mind the wait. Frankly, if it's so important to the convention that they're listed here, they're probably looking into the wrong promotional methods. It's not as if being listed here gets a convention a whole lot of attention. During all of December 2006, Anime Boston (the only con with server stats I have access to) only got 25 referring visitors from Wikipedia.--PatrickD 00:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not a matter of promotion. It's a matter of posting what is correct. There is still no reason given why this listing of conventions has to have criteria when no other genre of conventions on Wikipedia has any criteria to be listed in its respective category. Maybe this list has run its course. Perhaps this article should be marked for deletion, as the criteria only seems to help existing conventions to get listed. Conventions wanting to be listed here are restricted under rules which were established before they had an opportunity for representation in the creation of this criteria. Animesouth 00:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the problem by not allowing startup cons and most small cons on the list, nor do I see that as being "incorrect". Instead, it seems that you are just upset that your convention doesn't meet the criteria than anything else and now being disruptive to boot. --Farix (Talk) 01:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
One of the criteria, being the only one in a state, directly benefits the convention of which you are a part, Tsubasacon. The conflict of interest is obvious and I find you just as disruptive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.1.77.61 (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
I wasn't part of the Tsubasacon staff when the criteria was hashed out. So there wasn't a COI. --Farix (Talk) 12:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Jeez, what happens when I take a vacation... These unsigned comments are bordering on personal attacks, and I'm honestly getting tired of them. Allegations of "Conflict of Interest" in TheFarix's case are ridiculous, childish, and have no place here. Traegorn 22:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Criteria inconsistent

What is the rationale for excluding anime conventions that don't meet the criteria from this list? If criteria are to be applied, why is this not called "List of major anime conventions"? I would have nothing against a list of criteria for a definition qualified as "major", but without the qualifier, the criteria seem POV. Avt tor 07:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  1. Because the list should not be a duplicate of Category:Anime conventions, AnimeCons.com, or A Fans View.
  2. The original criteria when the list was created by Pipian was "larger conventions". We have since defined what "larger" meant.
  3. There are several minor conventions on the list because of the attendance exception clause. See the discussions above as to why the exception clause was added.
  4. No one in the currently running AfD, except for the nominator, has expressed a problem with the current criteria.
  5. Exactly how it POV to require some minimum conditions before including a convention on the list? --Farix (Talk) 12:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I have prominently linked Anime conventions, since as you say it's a relevant list that people should know about.
The AfD tag is clearly frivolous. The debate about criteria is no reason to delete the whole page.
But it is still POV to define anime conventions as not being anime conventions simply because they don't meet criteria other than being an anime convention. For the criteria to be relevant to the article, the name of the article needs to change. Avt tor 16:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Kentucky Question

There are two conventions currently listed under Kentucky, Sugoicon and AnimeCon Louisville. I can't find any references that indiciate that the latter meets the criteria for inclusion on this list. Does anyone have any insight into that event? It appears to be run out of a library, and I find it doubtful that they could accommodate enough people in a public space to make the 2000 attendance criterion. Echocharlie 16:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed AnimeCon Louisville, but you're right. I don't think it qualifies. Looking at the pictures on their site, it's pretty clear there aren't 2000 people there.--PatrickD 17:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. I suspect it may have been on the list prior to Sugoicon moving from Ohio to Kentucky. Echocharlie 17:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If the Tokyopop report is to believed, then AnimeCon Louisville would bump SugoiCon off the list. I don't think SugoiCon has released their 2005 or 2006 attendance figures, or at least it's not up at AnimeCons.com. --Farix (Talk) 01:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Scratch that. A closer read show that the article claims over two hundred instead of two thousand. --Farix (Talk) 01:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

SugoiCon is quizzically listed under both the Ohio and Kentucky headings. I don't believe it qualifies as a Kentucky convention, and should be removed from that heading for the following reasons: 1) on the SugoiCon's website, and indeed the SugoiCon article on WP, it advertises itself as a Cincinatti, OH convention; 2) looking at the con's contact info, one can verify that it is also planned in and has its principal mailing address in Cincinatti; 3) Erlanger, despite being physically over the Kentucky state line, is part of the Cincinatti metropolitan area -- even the hotel where SugoiCon is held calls itself the Holiday Inn Cincinatti Airport; 4) previous convention locations (and potentially any future location change) within Cincinatti would place the convention in Ohio. ~ SeanOrange 17:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor change to criteria

I propose the following change to the criteria:

"have held at least two prior conventions and actively planning a third" -> "have held at least two prior conventions and a date and location for a third convention has been announced"

The reason for this change is because we can't verify that a convention is in active planning. However, we can easily verify when a convention has announced a date and location. --Farix (Talk) 01:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. --PatrickD 02:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: List of anime conventions' criteria

This is a dispute about whether the list should continue to maintain the below criteria, or if the criteria should be altered or eliminated:

The convention must focus on anime, manga and Japanese culture, must run for at least two days, have at least two thousand attendees, and have held at least two prior conventions and actively planning a third. Exceptions to the attendance criteria will be made when the convention is the largest or only anime convention located within a state, province, or country. And finally, the convention must have an article in the Wikipedia.

Secondary disputes include whether the criteria should be mentioned in the list's lead and if Anime South should be included on the list even though it does not meet the list's criteria. 22:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
  • The criteria was created in order to clean up the list from the ambiguous collection of wiki and external links that had existed before March 2006. I firmly believe that it was the main reason that prevented this list from being deleted in the recent AFD iniciated by Animesouth. Had the criteria not existed, the list would have been in poor shape and the list would not have survived the AFD. The criteria provides basic verifiable benchmarks for all conventions to establish before they can be included on the list. It also provides exceptions for conventions that are in states, provinces, or countries were populations are too low to reach the 2,000 attendees threshold in order to keep the criteria from becoming too US-centric. However, removing the criteria will result in the list returning to the ambiguous collection of links (both wiki and external) it once was. --Farix (Talk) 22:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Per WP:NOT, WP:LC, and WP:LIST, having guidelines such as attendance over 2,000 persons, existence of two years, operation within a two-day time frame, and must be actively planning its third year are acceptable guidelines that keep things with notability guidelines also. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate lists, so unless that convention is the only convention in its locale, there is no reason to have small anime cons such as Anime South in there. We don't see conventions in British Columbia such as keikon.cjb.net/Kei-kon being added, because there is already a convention that swallows it in sheer size. Some states in the United States have upwards of five conventions, and there is no reason to be listing them all if they're not meeting certain requirements. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 23:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • To further add to my comment, even if Anime South is predicted to hit over 2,000 people this year, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until it can prove that it hit 2,000 persons at its 2007 convention, it does not belong on the list. Just because Otakon has a cap of twenty-someodd thousand people, it doesn't mean that it will hit that every year, and therefore Wikipedia does not report that. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 23:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments
  • Very minor quibble: there are some grammatical problems. First, "...and actively planning a third" should be "and be actively planning a third." Second, the last sentence should not have an "And" at the beginning. Otherwise, I am not qualified to comment. :) Good luck! --Masamage 23:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I have proposed in the discussion above to change it to, "... and a date and location for a third convention has been announced." I believe that is more solid on verifiability grounds then what is already stated. --Farix (Talk) 23:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's an idea, let's AfD Anime South. While any criteria can have reasonable exception, I see no reasonable exception for including Anime South. Since it seems a pretty reasonable criteria it would probably be a good idea to apply the same logic to the article itself. Basically, if a Con is not even notable to make this list article, it's pretty much improbable that it's notable enough for it's own article. Seems like a simple solution to me. -- Ned Scott 00:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I haven't read the preceding discussion, so I don't know if these have been gone over before. I'm unsure of the value of the first criterion: 2,000 seems fairly arbitrary, and how claims of attendance be substantiated from secondary sources? Moreover, the criterion that an article must have a Wikipedia article seems counter-intuitive to my idea of a Wikipedia list: provided the list's topic is notable, shouldn't we want it to be exhaustive, even if not all examples warrant an article? And what about cons that do warrant mention but as of yet don't have articles? (Something of an example: List of United States Senate committees mentions all subcomittees, even if several don't have articles.) Perhaps one way to cut this knot would be to remove the attendance criterion, convert the list to tables, and make a field titled "Attendance." If attendance figures are reliable enough for the criterion, they should be reliable enough to cite in the list proper. That would also allow one to dispense with the silliness of each state/province having its own subheader: make a field for "State/Province."--Monocrat 03:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm, I must have glossed over the part where it said they also had to have an article. I'd think there would be some Cons notable enough to list but not enough to have an article, and it would discourage people from making an article simply to get on this list. Relating to my previous comment, I find it unlikely that we would have a con notable enough to have an article but not to be on such a list (at least, for the time being). -- Ned Scott 05:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Should we list cons that have only ran for one year? Should we list cons that only last for a few hours? Should we list cons that happen during the lunch out at the local high school? The problem with being exhaustive is that it all to quickly becomes indiscriminate. As for secondary sources, AnimeCons.com is good at republishing attendance figures and AnimeCons.com does insist that the convention's make their figures public themselves before AnimeCons.com republishes the figures. --Farix (Talk) 00:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Farix, did I mention relaxing the criterion requiring two instances and one in planning? No. Nor did I mention relaxing the two-day criterion. Of course some criteria are necessary to sort the wheat from the chaff. However, I don't see the logic behind the specific figure of 2,000 attendees. (Of course, I'm not big on anime conventions.) If there's logic to it, then apply it uniformly: Why should a convention be notable just because it's the first one in a state/province/country? If another, larger one comes around in that jurisdiction, is the older one struck from the list? Ultimately, it seems to me that very few conventions are notable enough to warrant individual articles at all here on Wikipedia: Otakon, yes; Anime Weekend Atlanta, maybe; Anime South, likely not. Therefore an exhaustive, conscientious list strikes me as being valuable to the project.--Monocrat 03:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm actually curious to hear who chose 2000 as the magic number, and by what process it was chosen at all. If this can't be determined, then it actually fits the definition of the word 'arbitrary' and should be scrutinized accordingly. As far as Moncrat's end remarks there... does it seem to you that attendance size is the only qualifier relevant to and anime con being valid for an article on Wikipedia? I just want to understand your POV clearly.RCHM 02:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If we were to eliminate the criteria the page would be come a list of anime conventions, and Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Therefore criteria must exist if we want the page to continue to exist. I'd like to expand on what I see are fundamental problems with the criteria. The criterion of duration of existence is fine, but I lean towards making it stricter rather than looser. The purpose of the criteron of attendance is to eliminate the less notable conventions from the list. It was adopted based on an average number across all conventions in the US, and fails to account for the fact that the average increases every year. We should not be using the same number every year. We also apply the same number to non-US conventions, which seems strange to me. The state-exception is also very strange to me. I really don't see the need to be making exceptions to the criteria. If we really want to make sure every state has representation, and I for one don't, then make it part of the criteria instead of as an exception. So for here's a sample revised criteria list: (1) Be the largest convention in your state or be larger than the average convention in your country; (2) Event must have been held three times already. Echocharlie
    • I believe you are interpreting WP:NOT incorrectly, and certainly not the way other lists are interpreted. Wikipedia contains many lists. The policy is intended to prohibit unqualified lists of links, but a list of links to official web sites of relevant organizatins or events, or to other Wikipedia pages, would certainly be (and often is) permitted. When we had this discussion regarding science fiction conventions, it was suggested that conventions that happen only once, or conventions that only attract fifty people, might not be notable, and yet, I would even argue those points: each Worldcon happens only once and yet has their own page (because they are each different), and some special interest conventions like Ditto could still be considered notable. I would argue that for a list only defined as "anime conventions", criteria other than notability should not apply. However, I understand that anime conventions are huge, so a list of "major anime conventions" may be useful. Avt tor 04:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The use of criteria in lists is clearly outlined in Lists in Wikipedia. I do agree that the title makes the goal of the list unclear and should also be subject to review. With the criteria currently in place, this neither a "list of anime conventions" nor a list of "major anime conventions". Echocharlie 16:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm inclined to agree that the article name does not clearly identify the goal. Though what it should be changed to, I'm unable to give an opinion. Largest? Major? Notable? Established?RCHM 02:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I oppose any external links to convention websites, like List of science fiction conventions, as I think that including those links is a violation of WP:NOT. I also oppose any attempts that would cause this list to be a duplicate of the two directory sites listed in "External links". --Farix (Talk) 00:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The problem with changing the average year to year is that you will have a contently moving target. It would also be a maintenance hassle as we recalculate that average and revalidate each and every convention that could be on the list each year. That's more work than any of us is willing to do. One a number has been established, it shouldn't change from year to year. --Farix (Talk) 00:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • If the number isn't evaluated periodically, then more and more conventions will be added on the list every year. It's not impossible that in a few years, 75% of the anime conventions in the US meet the 2000 attendance requirement. If not annually, then we must make some provision for reviewing the number on a regular basis, say every 3 years. In any case, it's still odd that we use an outdated US average when considering non-US countries and that we make exceptions based on statehood. There's also no way for a casual reader of the list to determine which conditions an event met when listed because of the exception criteria. Is Anime Weekend Atlanta on the list because it's the only convention in Georgia, or because it's a legitimately large and established event? I know the already know the answer, but the listing criteria makes it unclear for the reader. That's one of the reasons I'm in favor of abolishing the exception altogether. But, I digress... Echocharlie 03:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
        • It could be argued the inclusion of attendance could be considered contrary to WP:NOTE "notability is not popularity." How would we evaluate conventions occurring in places where not much else goes on by comparison? Consider an Anime Con in ... lets say ND or MT. They have comparatively low population, especially per square mile. Say a convention there does 5000 in attendance, and a convention in TN does 5000. The convention in TN only drew .08 of a percent point of the population, but the ND convention drew .79 of a point. Would we be able to say the TN con is not notable, but the ND is because of this relative characteristic, I wonder? Food for thought...RCHM 01:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Coming from a background of of science fiction conventions, I think an event that pulled in a thousand people every year would require a crew of at least a few dozen volunteers and this would certainly meet the usual criterion of notability. Given that, I think you should either change the name of the article or find a reliable source to justify the criteria. The article is a list of major anime conventions, it should be called that. It's been my experience that clearing up the semantics usually makes the arguments go away. With a word like "major", it's more reasonable for consensus to define criteria. Avt tor 04:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have previously noted many of the points the users above me have mentioned. This article should either be "List of major anime conventions" or "List of anime conventions". If it is the latter, all of the anime conventions should be listed. If it is the former, I think it is POV, considering the arbitrary criteria being used, and especially when you consider that no other genre convention list on Wikipedia (sci-fi, comic book, furry, gaming) has a condition to be listed, with the sole exception of being a convention of said genre. Even with the present criteria, most of these conventions should not be listed as the attendance counts are given from the conventions' own press releases, which do not comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. -Animesouth 07:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I find the earlier mention of changing actively planning to date announced to be an appropriate change.RCHM 02:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • How did we come to the determination that we wanted this list filtered by attendance size, locale, longevity, and linkability in the first place?RCHM 02:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Because the criteria fits the conventions in which many of the above editors have an interest. -Animesouth 03:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Please observe WP:NPA and WP:AGF. We're not going to get any traction on discussing the criteria as long as we waste time questioning people's motivations. Avt tor 19:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • You know, you're not really helping your cause here by dropping unaccountable assertions like this. RCHM 01:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
        • The original question is worth attention. Questioning people's motivation is perfectly legitimate and not a personal attack by default. My question is not trying to cast aspersions on anyone's good name, or character, nor does asking for someone's motivations constitute an assumption of bad faith. In fact, I don't think the discussion can intelligently continue until we examine the basis for which the topic is wrapped around is brought to some analysis. Farix says the criteria was formulated to counter an AFD initiated by Animesouth. So that answers the question of why the criteria were formulated, but not the question on why the specific composition of the criteria was selected. Colin says that using WP guidelines as citation legitimises the composition of the criteria, and that may be correct but still doesn't answer why some criteria was chosen and not others. I think it should be recognised why and/or how it was determined that attendance size, locale, longevity, and linkability were selected as the criteria. Once this is done, then I feel we can intelligently discuss changing, tweaking, adding, or removing material because we will have a clearer idea of original intent. We can also then decide if original intent was good and should remain, or if it should be changed to be better. RCHM 01:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
          • It seems like this is mostly a semantic discussion. I know it's old ground, but the criteria make more sense if the list were of "Major Anime Cons", which (if I'm reading correctly) was the original intent of the list. All of the criteria make sense to me for a listing of all (survivable) conventions, except for the minimum attendance requirement. What was the process of arriving at this particular numer? More importantly, how useful is it in actual practice? A quick scan of the non-defunct conventions (66, by my count) shows that 34 of them either make use of the attendance exception, or fail to list their attendance altogether. That's over half of the listed conventions. Also, how will these criteria be enforced if, say, a new convention pops up in a region where an older -- but still much smaller -- con doesn't grow to or beyond the 2000 minimum? Will that established convention be taken off the list in favor of the one that fulfills the criteria without requiring the exception? I can think of two ways to modify that particular requirement: 1) reduce it to a number more representative of the available attendance mean/average, and/or 2) just have to show demonstrable growth, which is a far better measure of a con's future survivability than sheer volume. ~ SeanOrange 21:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I concur. This listing should be either "Major Anime Cons" or a listing of all of them. Having a criteria that allows a 400 person con to be listed while conventions 4 times their size are excluded just because the former convention is the only convention in that state does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. Since independent auditors are not hired to verify the attendance figures released by the conventions, that part of the criteria does not appear to hold any merit, either, as previously mentioned under Wikipedia:Verifiability. -Animesouth 07:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Now that articles for smaller anime conventions are actually being nominated for deletion if they are not notable, I feel I can get behind an effort to have this article list more anime conventions...but only if there is a wiki article about the convention itself. Articles such as Japanese Animation Club of Orlando should not count if they're about the organization, not the con. Conventions without articles should still be kept off the list. If the convention is not notable (such as Anime South, which keeps being brought up by a certain WP:COI user), then it really shouldn't have an article in the first place and therefore wouldn't be in the list anyway. There was concern that this could result in this list being a copy of Category:Anime conventions, but the main difference is that this list sorts the events out by region. I still strongly feel that this page should not be renamed and this page should not attempt to list all anime conventions. Finally, conventions should always be listed in the state in which they will take place next, no matter what "major city" they may be next to -- because "next to" and "near" are subjective. --PatrickD 20:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thats all fine, and you've stated what you DON'T want it to become, but the question is, what SHOULD it be, and its being asked by at least 3 here. I already said I don't know what it should be, myself. Also, you've said here that one criteria should be that the con have its own article, so my simple question is 'why?' You didn't specifically cite a reason, but its implied that you do not want it to become all anime conventions. Is there any other reasons? If we have a clear answer to that, then it may get easier to select other criteria we can all agree on. Call me crazy, here, but i think its more important to get the 'why' nailed down rather than just shoot for a comprimise between contributors.RCHM 22:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think this list should be a list of anime conventions (with Wikipedia articles) organized by region (country/state/etc.). Correct me if I'm wrong, but the criteria of 2000+ attendees, etc. was originally put on here as a way to make this list conventions of a certain level of significance and not have this page be a copy/paste from AnimeCons.com. Since conventions need to be notable in order to have an article, that AfD process can handle the question of notability in regard to each convention for us. That way conventions won't have to essentially establish notability twice (once to have an article survive AfD and once to be listed here). If this page attempts to list "all" anime conventions in a manner similar to AnimeCons.com, then we'll just end up back where we started trying to figure out what qualifies as an "anime convention". Would it have to be 2+ days? Would it need a certain attendance? Would we list small cons that no longer exist? ...or would we just list every anime club or cosplay gathering that called themselves a con? These are the same problems I encounter with AnimeCons.com every day and why I had to institute certain criteria for listing over there. (You can see the "AnimeCons Policy on Listed Events" at the bottom of this page.) ...and that's why I put forward the proposal, because no matter what we do, there has to be some sort of criteria in order for events to be listed here. --PatrickD 23:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • well, I still don't know why the 2000+ criteria was selected. :) Nobody's answered that question for us. Second: I see and accept your reasoning for the listing of a standalone convention article that can survive AfD. But we can cite 'notability is not popularity' as maybe an arguement against having the 2000 criteria. Again, I'm not saying what should be criteria because I can't really come up with an answer, but what I can do is ask the question why we're doing it the way we are now.- I would agree with retaining the criteria of the convention having its own article just on good principal with wiki-standards here, in fact, I say that should be the #1 requirement for now. Everything else I'm still questioning.RCHM 01:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This AfD for "smaller anime conventions" has conveniently left alone numerous conventions, which includes many of the editors who support this current criteria. Also, this listing includes conventions such as Anime Boston, of which PatrickD has been chairman for 2 years; this is a conflict of interest. In addition, the reasoning for the number 2,000 is simple - it excludes smaller conventions; editors involved with larger conventions, such as Patrick with Anime Boston (see WP:COI), decided to use that number as the threshold for becoming notable. -Animesouth 16:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • By observation of your remarks, you're pretty bent on an inferiority complex and more focused at blaming than coming up with a solution. Either offer one up, or consider further dialogue from you ignored, because you're still not helping your position. Until you can cite some actual proof of a personal grudge or vendetta against Animesouth which you seem to feel the 'big name' conventions have, and that people are scrupulously concocting criteria favorable to them and punitive to you, your words will continue to come off kind of hollow. COI is irrellevant to the questions I've asked here without proof, and as you can see earlier, I already made a case for 'notability is not popularity.' Either try to contribute to a solution, come up with some proof of sabotage, or be overlooked.RCHM 17:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Marc (Animesouth), you're barking up the wrong tree here. Yes, List of anime conventions includes Anime Boston, but it's one of the 10 largest in the country. If you're arguing that it should not be listed, then that's absolutely insane. Also, you accuse me of setting the "2000" limit. I invite you to point out where I ever participated in the initial discussions to set that as the limit. Sure, I helped enforce the policy once it was in place and supported it, but was never a part of creating that policy. However, here I am proposing a new policy that eliminates the 2000 limit and you attack me? Dude, WTF? I find your personal attack against me to be highly offensive and await your apology. Until that time, I'm just going to join RCHM in ignoring you. --PatrickD 18:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I had dropped out of the discussion because I was tired of going around in circles with you. But now you've gone to make a WP:POINT by nominating Tsubasacon for deletion, despite that it does pass WP:ORG and WP:N and is perfectly ATTributable by multiple independent third-party sources. --Farix (Talk) 21:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Let me also add that I wasn't even associated with Tsubasacon, other then as an attendee, until last October. That was long after the original criteria was adopted and the bulk of my work on the article had been completed. --Farix (Talk) 22:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It occurs to me that reducing or removing the attendance requirement (which I am in support of doing) puts the article in danger of being too much like Category:Anime conventions once again. There are already some good ideas here that I think keep them different, and I'd like to expand upon them.
    • New conventions (proven notable by their Wiki entries) should have their own "New Conventions" sub-list, like a sort of probationary area. Because some of these conventions will statistically not make it into their third year, they will never have to be added to the main list.
    • Defunct conventions could also have their own listing so as not to clutter up the main list with unuseful information. I have no strong preference on whether this should include failed fledgling conventions, except to say that if they still have a Wiki article, this entry should mention them in some capacity -- e.g. some are notable as precursors to other, larger cons in their region. Long-running conventions that have ended (i.e. ones that used to be on the main list) should certainly be included without exception.
    • The main list then becomes a comprehensive list of all "Active" and viable Anime cons available on Wikipedia. Cons that survive their probationary period can "graduate" to this list. Once on this list, a convention cannot be removed unless it is no longer running (where it will be relisted under that heading). Under the current requirements, it seems silly to me that a large convention that moves to a new state or one cropping up and having greater attendance than a smaller one will bump smaller conventions off the list. Doing this should hopefully dispel further rumors of large conventions getting special treatment, as well as stop discussion of what conventions are really in which states.
    • Listings for the top 10 most popular cons should definitely stick around, as this digest could be potentially useful to someone. However, year after year, I can see this list taking up more and more space, so perhaps it should just be for the last or previous two years before the present convention season.
The precedent for this division is already present in things like the current top 10 listings. Hopefully it's a compromise that most will find preferable to the current restrictive rules. Also, please forgive the indentation edit: making the comments a list was making it difficult to distinguish between the list items I wanted to create, but were still clearly part of my comment. ~ SeanOrange 19:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course that's not what I mean. That would be silly. Main list would be like it is now. Under that, up-and-comers (possibly no need to separate by region?). Under that defunct cons (ditto). Under that, the various digests. Order doesn't really matter, so long as it makes sense, but definitely all one article. ~ SeanOrange 15:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see why new conventions would have to be broken out on their own. If someone came to this list, I'd imagine they would be looking for conventions in their region and wouldn't necessarily care if it was new or not...rather than coming to the list and looking for either new or old conventions and then finding one in a particular region. Defunct on its own still makes sense though...since they don't exist anymore and nobody can attend them anyway, it would help to eliminate confusion. However, I don't see a need to separate out the handful of "new" conventions that would also qualify for an article. It seems like you're making this a little more complicated than it needs to be. --PatrickD 16:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And defunct conventions may have their own articles, so have a historical note, i suppose. I ended up doing something similar over on video game music because everybody and their brother wanted to put their video game garage band web page into an article. I ended up creating video game music culture, put them all there, and left it to others decide if it was a valid article. My main intent was just to get all the gratuitous self-linking off the article and didn't honestly care about the other one much, but it continues to exist. The only problem was i had a clear criteria to deliniate why it was seperated, and i see no such clarity here. It still requires us to identify our criteria for THIS article, which is still up in the air, I suppose...RCHM 20:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks like I'm responding to two different thoughts (I hope to dispel 2 for real this time):
  1. Because under the current criteria, those new conventions wouldn't even be listed here, so I suggested it as a way to ease in those entries against possible objections from other editors (including yourself, however that's apparently not going to be an issue). I still find the other guidelines useful, like the multiple-day requirement to differentiate between conventions and "club gatherings". The multiple-year requirement (as it stands) also ensures that gatherings/cons that occur only once -- or are only intended to occur once -- don't clutter up the list with information that might be valid one year, and just gone the next. If there's consensus that this part of the criteria is no longer useful, and we have just one list, then I'd recommend that the convention actually has to have been held once and has announced a second year before it's listed. Hopefully this will have the same effect -- being held once is practically a prerequisite for even having the sources necessary for WP:Notability, so having announced the second con makes sure we don't list conventions that won't occur again, or have them just to right to the "RIP" pile.
  2. However, I don't see a need to separate out the handful of "new" conventions that would also qualify for an article I never once said any of these should be a separate article. Squilibob said that as a misinterpretation of my comments, which I have already taken care to correct. However, if a list of defunct cons would make sense as its own article, that's something to look into. ~ SeanOrange 22:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why even bother with a multiple day requirement? I doubt most "club gatherings" would even have a wiki article and if they do, they'd probably never survive AfD. If they do survive, they must be a pretty darn spiffy one-day con...which would seem to make it worthy of inclusion. This is why I proposed letting pretty much any con with an article be listed so we can let the AfD process sort out what cons do and don't belong. Plus, since we're sorting these out by country/state/province and active/defunct status, it would not be just a copy of Category:Anime conventions and the page would have a valid reason to exist. --PatrickD 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know long we're keeping this RFC open, but since no one else is commenting, I'm going to change the page to reflect the consensus that all anime conventions should be listed here if they have a Wikipedia article and the said article survives WP:AFD. -Animesouth 01:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b http://anime-cons.com/events/info.shtml/1193
  2. ^ http://anime-cons.com/events/info.shtml/997
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_anime_and_manga_conventions/Archive_1&oldid=1214823210"