Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frostburn (Regional Burn)

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 merge to Burning Man. (Specifically, on closer examination of the parent article, to the sub-article List of regional Burning Man events) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frostburn (Regional Burn)[edit]

Non-notable event, which claims to be a regional offshoot of Burning Man. No reliable sources, only the official web site and a Flickr photo collection. Only 100 participants at a one-time event. I'm checking into other articles about similar events, and I suspect many of them will come up for AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To an outsider, Burning Man and its "regional offshoots" may appear to be mere events, but Burning Man's core values have evolved into a social movement, and regional events are evidence of this movement. All accurate, neutral articles on legitimate regional burn events are notable for this reason, and removal of said articles feels like an attempt to downplay or even suppress a growing subculture/counter-culture that already reaches every corner of modern civilization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4noise (talk • contribs) 04:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Uh, yeah, we're all about suppression here. Seriously, Wikipedia is not a place to promote movements, causes, or anyhting else. Your comment above proves that the purpose of your article is to promote the Burning Man "movement." The event simply does not meet Wikipedia notability standards, period, full stop. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is no more the place to promote a movement than to supress it. However, it is the place to document one. Quoting WP:SOAP (first point): "Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." This is exactly what most of the regional burn articles (including the one on Frostburn) accomplish. The tone of your comments comes across as dismissive and arrogant, and this is no place for attitude! Most of your arguments for deletion fall under the "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" (WP:NOTBIGENOUGH, WP:ATA#CRYSTAL) or are open to rebuttal under Wikipedia:Notability "Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability" ("There is a lack of objective criteria", "Valid content is deleted", "Obscure content isn't harmful"). Visitors count on Wikipedia for neutral, reliable information, and these articles on regional burns (should) provide exactly that. Let's keep the articles, but keep them objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4noise (talk • contribs) 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I disagree. The article promotes more than informs, and the event fails notability guidelines anyway. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the official number of participants required at a one-time event to pass the notability test? Would 101 have made it a notable event? Is it based on the number of participants relative to the number of people reading Wikipedia that could have attended the event? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allartburns (talk • contribs) 21:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a die-hard Burner and a participant in Frostburn, I nevertheless have to agree with Realkyhick. Should Burning Man have an entry? Definitely--it has impacted the culture as a whole and spawned a social movement, as Wiki4noise points out. Larger regionals such as Playa del Fuego, that are nearly a decade old and still growing? Perhaps, but I would like to see that they have had some influence other than that of Burning Man as a whole. Frostburn? I'm less convinced. What about the weekly Burning Man meet-and-greets that take place at Cambridge Brewing Company in Boston? Do they get an entry as well? I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere. I would say that the regional themselves do deserve an entry because they are evidence of a growing social movement, but I would have thought that a list of them should be sufficient, and devoting a whole page to each one seems like unnecessary overdetail.

Notability is defined as the following: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If Frostburn is notable, then whether 100 or 101 people attended is not the issue, rather the issue is whether the culture as a whole noticed it (i.e. news stories etc.) Burning Man clearly meets criteria. Frostburn I'm not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.6.4 (talk)

I don't know if this qualifies as "significant coverage", but the January 30th issue of the Pittsburgh City Paper--the metro area's #1 weekly guide to culture and entertainment--featured a three-column article entitled "Main Event" on the "Short List" page (page 42) all about Frostburn. The online version isn't available any more (it seems they replace the prior week's content with the next weeks content on a single web page), but I have added a reference to the print version of the publication to the Wikipedia article. If anyone wants to see the actual story, I have a scanned GIF version I can forward to you. Wiki4noise (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I did not nominate Playa del Fuego specifically because it has been around a while, attracted attention from outside sources, and generally stood the test of time. Frostburn does not, at least for now. By the way, an article called "Regional Burning Man events," with a paragraph or two about each event, would probably qualify as notable if sourced properly. The regional-burn movement as a whole (Beavis and Butt-Head interrupts: "Heh-heh, he said 'as-a-hole,' heh-heh-heh!") is probably significant enough to be notable, but not most of the individual events. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good idea, perhaps replacing the "List of Regional Burning Man Events" with a "Summary of Regional Burn Events" page? Wiki4noise (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could go for that pretty easily. This title could then redirect to a section in that article. Anyone else have a comment on this idea? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect sounds like the ideal solution here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does sound like the best solution to merge & redirect the small, minimally-covered regionals to a bigger article. If there's any reliable sources out there that cover the satellite events as a general phenomenon, that would be excellent. — Scientizzle 16:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a number of these on AfD right now...just to centralize, the list is below (please add if I've missed some). — Scientizzle 16:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely merge and redirect this and all associated Burning Man articles up at AfD at the moment, unless reliable sources exist or have already been found on a case by case basis —αlεx•mullεr 21:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all of these - failing notability check. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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