Wiki143:Articles for deletion/10th World Science Fiction Convention

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 09:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

10th World Science Fiction Convention

I'm unable to verify that this convention even happened (what year was it?), and the claim that this is where Sturgeon's Law was formulated does not mesh with our history given in the Sturgeon's Law article, which is more referenced/reliable. So the whole thing seems questionable. Delirium 04:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Comment: In light of the below, I'd now support this being kept and cleaned up as well. --Delirium 23:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• This convention definitely took place (in 1952); it's on the Long List of Worldcons [1] on the World Science Fiction Society web site. But if its claim to notability is the formulation of Sturgeon's Law, and that's not even a verifiable claim, I don't think it needs an article. Delete as a first choice, and as a second choice redirect to Worldcon. --Metropolitan90 05:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm, it's possible that this is the site of the "panel discussion" that Sturgeon's Law references, but it'd be nice to have a source if so. --Delirium 05:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • This piece says that Sturgeon set forth his revelation/law at the Worldcon in Philadelphia in 1953, as opposed to the Chicago Worldcon in 1952 that this article is about. --Metropolitan90 06:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a world annual convention - not necessarily the best-known or best-documented, but a worldcon nonetheless. I've added what information I can to it, but sadly my collection of Astoundings only goes back to 1954, otherwise I'd probably be able to add more. At the time this one was a very big convention, too - it held the world record for registered attendees for over a decade. It was also at this convention that the idea for the Hugo Award was formulated. Grutness...wha? 09:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • PS - it's also part of a group of articles, each dealing with a separate Worldcon. At the moment about 25% of Worldcons have separate articles, and if this one is redirected it will be strange once all the others are done. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but I think the Sturgeon's Law statements needs to be taken out until a verifiable reference can be found. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Worldcon. The convention is quite notable, but the reasons that this particular year's one are remembered don't really make the '52 one worth a standalone article. The references to Sturgeon's Law and the Hugo Award need to be researched and sourced (and corrected if needed) when they're added to the parent article. Barno 20:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The convention definitely took place. Reference to Sturgeon's law needs to be verified. The convention (like all Worldcons) is an important part of the cultural history of Science fiction. If the article does not sufficiently reflect this, it is a good reason for expansion, not deletion or merger. --Chino 07:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to World Science Fiction Convention. Start general, becoming more specific only when necessary. -- GWO
• Keep and expand. There is no fundamental reason why this article could not grow to look more like 63rd World Science Fiction Convention (which is no more or less significant than any other Worldcon). If we include all data about all Worldcons (64 of them so far with one added each year) to World Science Fiction Convention, the article would grow out of all proportion. --UFOPOLI 13:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yes, but we have no need to include "all data about all Worldcons." If we limit content to verifiable general-encyclopedia material by WP standards, rather than everything that one might want in an "Encyclopedia of Science Fiction", the article would stay within the 64K guideline. Barno 14:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • If we were to do that, half of Wikipedia would have to be deleted. Really, the nice thing about Wikipedia is that we have pages like Spoo and Karl Mayer. And who would go to an encyclopedia expecting to find as much information as there is in Interim Peace? Or Atta sexdens? Both articles contain more information than you might expect to find in "Encyclopedia of Finnish History" and "Encyclopedia of Ants", respectively. --Chino 15:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per comments from Grutness. Scorpiondollprincess 13:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep please per comments by grutness Yuckfoo 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.