Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RecentChangesCamp

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. MBisanz talk 01:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RecentChangesCamp[edit]

RecentChangesCamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The article lacks multiple, reliable, independent sources to indicate notability, nor was I able to find these. If this is just a few people playing around on computers together for a weekend every year, and no one's covered it, we certainly shouldn't be. Biruitorul Talk 02:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There is no significant coverage. This is non-notable, self-promotional and self-aggrandizing. Outside of being a Wikipedia related event, it has no notability. Less than 200 people attended. Even the talk page is used as promotional, see Talk:RecentChangesCamp#Be Prepared. I mean no harm or offense to those involved in the Camp. I actually think the Camp is awesome and a great idea. I just don't think it is notable enough for an article, and we can't play favorites. Kingturtle (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NOTE: lacks "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Also agree with above rationales provided by Biruitorul (talk · contribs) and Kingturtle (talk · contribs). Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep An exclusive feature article from a major regional newspaper most definitely meets the definition of significant coverage that is independent of the subject. If the article needs tone work, then let's work on it. But needing clean up is never a reason for deletion. RCC is not actually much related to Wikipedia, for the record. Only last year did Wikimedia Foundation people attend. As for <200 people, there is no notability guideline or policy that says a certain number of people must attend an event. If you're looking for fame to define notability, then RecentChangesCamp meets it by being one of only a couple international wiki conferences, one that has been attended by a lot of notable wiki companies and people (including Ward Cunningham). In other words, RCC is a unique, important event that has been given significant coverage by a very reliable source. That's notable. Steven Walling (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to where it has received coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. One piece in a regional paper doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, last time I checked, exclusive coverage in a very reliable source did meet WP:NOTE. Only in the case of small or insignificant mentions in an RS must you have a bevy of reliable sources. Steven Walling (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even that significant of an article. Basically just a few quotes of attendees. Have any other reliable secondary sources independent of the subject of the article ever even mentioned "RecentChangesCamp" in any capacity at all? Cirt (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of mentions in general if you do a blog or net search, but notable ones include a post from Creative Commons (an independent, international non-profit), and a post by Ross Mayfield. While notability isn't inherited, I think it's important to note that Ward Cunningham attended RCC along with WikiSym (and of course Wikimania). If this conference is big enough for the wiki founder to attend, international free culture non-profits to promote independently, and the CEO of the first enterprise wiki company to blog about, then it is clearly notable in addition to the mainstream press coverage from The Oregonian. Steven Walling (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Biruitorul (talk · contribs), below - blog mentions are not acceptable for determining notability as per WP:NOTE - so that really does not answer my question. Cirt (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to blogs and the newspaper article, the recently published How Wikipedia Works mentions the conference. There's your multiple sources, across several mediums. Steven Walling (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Folks, this is a notable conference about Wikis & online communities. It merited this mention by a WMF staff member. it has gotten funding in the past from Wiki-based businesses like Atlassian, SocialText, AboutUs -- oh, & this guy by the name of Ward Cunningham is a big supporter of RCC. If these testimonials don't convince enough Wikipedians & the consensus is to delete this article... well folks, we all are going to look really foolish. I wonder just how many times we can make stupid decisions before the general consensus in the Real World is that Wikipedia is not at all reliable. --llywrch (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blog mentions are, of course, unreliable. - Biruitorul Talk 16:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Biruitorul (talk · contribs) here - just because someone really likes this event, or blogged about it, does not satisfy WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did I say anything about "blogging"? Or is this a meaning of the word "funding" that I am unaware of? When a company donates money &/or resources to a regular conference on a topic (I assume here, for argument's sake, that Wikis & online communities are notable), then IMHO that establishes notability. -- llywrch (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- one of only three regular conferences about wikis to exist (the other two are Wikimania and WikiSym); has run for several years now, a notable technology barcamp. This is not a Wikimedia event, and is unconnected with Wikipedia and the WMF. And a note on process -- why in the world was the redirect at Recent Changes Camp preemptively deleted? Please undelete until this debate is over. Thank you, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 05:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please back that up with multiple reliable sources? - Biruitorul Talk 16:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Biruitorul, I am a reliable source on this particular topic, having been intensively involved with the wiki conference scene from the beginning :P but yes, I'll look for sources. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I confirm phoebe's assertion, that RecentChangesCamp is one of only three regular conferences about wikis, and also that it is a notable technology barcamp. My relevant background: I have been part of the public wiki community since 2001 (see KaminskiWiki on archive.org); I was CTO of Socialtext, a leading wiki vendor, from 2003-2008; and I have discussed RecentChangesCamp and the other wiki conferences with other leaders of the wiki community, such as Ward Cunningham, Sunir Shah, Dirk Riehle, and Eugene Eric Kim. I have been an organizer of several BarCamps, including the first one, and have discussed BarCamp with several founders of the BarCamp model, including Chris Messina and Tara Hunt. -- Peter Kaminski (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's all nice info, but you saying it on Wikipedia in a post is WP:OR... Cirt (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think Pete's point is that it's a notable event within the wiki community, according to experts in the field (of which he is one, something I can confirm). It's not an event that has sought out celebrity or press, however, so sources are thinner on the ground than they are for some events (but about the same as for many academic or community conferences). -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is going to legitimize this article is finding other worthwhile sources. There is currently but one, The Oregonian article - which unfortunately we cannot access off the Internet. Was it on the front page? Was it a just a paragraph in the backpages? Kingturtle (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Oregonian article was the main article on the front page of the Business section. It included a large photo. The article was continued on an inside page of that section. You can examine photos of the newspaper I took: front page of business section and continuation to page C2. -- Peter Kaminski (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have any other reliable secondary sources independent of the subject of the article discussed RecentChangesCamp? Cirt (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cirt, you are coming very close to being tendentious & disruptive. I am finding it hard to assume you are contributing here in good faith. -- llywrch (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • My apologies, that is not at all my intention. Simply to point out that no matter how many people assert that something is notable because they say it is, doesn't get around the fact that the subject of the article has not been the subject of coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the article's subject. And so far, no one commenting in this discussion has proved otherwise. I highly doubt the Wikipedia community would agree to have articles about every single topic that has ever been discussed in a single solitary article of a regional paper - without also having been discussed in multiple other secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • see the La Presse article -- good-sized article in a major metro paper -- as an additional source. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 19:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also interesting is the fact that an article appeared on this event in 2006 (and, let us note, the business section is deep inside a paper, quite a few articles have continuations, and it may just be that early February 2006 was an otherwise quiet period in Portland - reporters do have to keep writing about something in order to remain on the payroll), but nothing on the two 2007 events or the 2008 event. - Biruitorul Talk 00:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for more recent coverage, please note that How Wikipedia Works mentions RCC. I've added it as a reference to the contents of the conference. Steven Walling (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I agree with sj's post on the talk page that the article should be kept but was poor quality -- so I went ahead and cleaned it up, removing lots of extraneous info and fixing the formatting. I also found another article (in French) that was published about the Montreal RecentChangesCamp in La Presse. (update: I found an English translation of the article) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- was notable already, and the second source satisfies the letter of WP:NOTE as well as the spirit. --John_Abbe (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- Meets notability requirements. --Lizzard (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kristin, the reason most blogs aren't considered reliable as sources is not that they don't denote popularity (they most certainly do), but that they mostly don't have a defined editorial structure like a news org or a publishing house does. Steven Walling (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RecentChangesCamp&oldid=1062292094"