Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiwi Foo Camp

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 No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:56Z

[edit] Kiwi Foo Camp

Kiwi Foo Camp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Seems to be an offshoot of Foo Camp. However, in its own right it isn't notable. It had a speedy tag, but due to controversy (especially from Geek Zone), I am submitting this to AFD. I suggest it be merged with Foo Camp, however others want it deleted. I'll let the community decide. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

A call for calm: As the person who added this to AFD and reversed the speedy deletion nomination, could I please remind people to assume good faith? Some people saw it as having no real context, or being advertising. That in itself could be argued to be against good faith, but in my opinion honest mistakes happen and that's what I'm seeing here. There is no conspiracy to remove new articles from Wikipedia! Some articles are appropriate, and others are not appropriate. Many people (so far) have agreed with my suggestion to merge, so it doesn't do anyone any good to say that there is a group of editors on Wikipedia with a vendetta against Wikipedia!!!!! Please, everyone calm down. I know how these things go, as I've gotten upset over AFDs also, so I have some sympathy. However, every time I've been upset I've gotten up a lot of people's noses and either my behaviour (or percieved behaviour) has caused people to argue for deletion, or has caused a redo of the AFD. Never a good idea! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

• The controversy stems from the lack of due process - so far, I've seen no real justification for deleting the article. I can assure everyone that there is no spamming, promotion or advertising going on here. Please assist by explaining why the article is objectionable. It's not the greatest thing that's ever happened in the world, but it does have significance to Kiwis, and other such unconferences are listed in Wikipedia already. If New Zealand events with historical bearing are not considered important and Wikipedia intends to delete all other similar things entries as listed in the unconference entry in the name of consistency, fine, I'll accept that.Juha 08:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, it was perfectly in process to add a speedy deletion tag. However, as there is some controversy, I am taking this to AFD. Please, incidently, when you add a comment, please use the following to sign your comments: ~~~~. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, forgot to sign that comment. Still getting used to the Wikipedia interface. --Juha 08:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      • No probs, we were all in that boat once :-) Ta bu shi da yu 08:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Merging with the Foo Camp entry is probably OK, but doesn't that make it messy? --Juha 08:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Not really, if Kiwi Foo Camp is a notable event then adding a section about notable events would be fine. Just remember to cite your sources. The article doesn't have to be deleted, merging is fine. Besides, if we merge we tend to redirect to the original article. Anyone who types in Kiwi Foo Camp would get redirected immediately to Foo Camp. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ta bu shi da yu: Firstly, thanks for your more helpful tone. In my view we have been subject to needlessly hostile editing today. (I should note that my own name did not appear in the original text; it was in the new text created by Juha after mine was deleted.) I have written an entry outlining what happened and noting significant elements of the event on the Talk page for the original article - if I need to reiterate that information here, just let me know and I'll do so. Please accept that we are simply trying to create a concise article relating to an important event for the New Zealand tech community, and one which will take place annually. If required, I am happy to write a studiedly neutral new entry for the event (I am a working journalist), but I genuinely struggle to seen where Juha or I have done anything wrong. Russb10 09:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, firstly, nobody has done anything wrong. It was perfectly fine to create a new article, but then it was perfectly find for someone to think it was spam (though perhaps not in saying so out loud, as this is really going against Wikipedia:Assume good faith). However, notability is a bit of a vague and nebulous concept on Wikipedia (and in fact, pretty much everywhere). For instance, my wife (if she would ever edit Wikipedia, bless her soul) would not find Kiwi Foo Camp notable, whereas I do find it somewhat notable, though not enough for an article in it's own right. The problem with the existence of the article is not with it's neutrality - this can always be fixed - but with determining just where the article should exist on Wikipedia. My take is it should go into Foo Camp, until it picks up over a few years. After a few years, it could then by split, but only after some consensus. Would there be a problem with merging it into Foo Camp? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Ta bu shi da yu: I guess it would be an adequate result for the article to be merged with the main Foo Camp article, even if the two events have different organisational teams and take place in different countries. But you wrote this on Geekzone: Your article may be found notable, but one of the arguments on the talk page should not be used - the argument that the Foo Camp article was how people found out about Kiwi Foo Camp. This isn't what I said, so allow me to clarify: The main Wikipedia Foo Camp article is Google's top result for the relevant search: it is the most linked-information about Foo Camp, and by definition the primary means by which people find out what Foo Camp is. For a hostile editor to muse that it is "spam" and therefore ripe for deletion seems destructive in the extreme to me. I appreciate everything you say about Wikipedia's status as an encylopedia, but I really think you could be a little stronger in your criticism of the unfair and irrational editing that has gone on today.Russb10 09:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I too was stunned to see a good-faith article being labelled as spam when it clearly didn't hawk anything. That said, maybe the best thing is to learn from what happened and be glad that the Wikipedia process worked in the end and brought the article to the AFD stage. Not that I understand how that happened, but either way, if it causes too much grief to have the Kiwi Foo Camp as a separate article, merging with the main Foo Camp one seems to be an acceptable compromise.

In case it's necessary information, like Russell I too am a working journalist in New Zealand. I have no connection with O'Reilly or any other entity represented at the Kiwi Foo Camp. There is a not so nice irony in that Wikipedia was held up to the Hon Judith Tizard as a contrast to the state-sponsored Te Ara online encyclopaedia of New Zealand... the former being much more useful to Kiwis than the latter due to the richness of the content. --Juha 10:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Alright, in the course of seeking to do the right thing here, I have read the grounds for speedy deletion in the Deletion policy: Pages that are suitable for immediate deletion and which can obviously be deleted on sight (see criteria for speedy deletion; examples include patent nonsense, advertising, pure vandalism and certain housekeeping situations - or, as the line below sums it up, "utter rubbish". This is simply not an accurate description of the original article, yet it was marked for speedy deletion within minutes of creation. It was then, so far as I can tell, deleted even though the hangon tag had been posted, and while it was being edited. New text was then retagged for speedy deletion on completely different grounds. The only reason this article has gone to AFD is this hostile editing.Russb10 11:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- SimonLyall 11:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with main foocamp article. Appears to be just a regional variation and once off so far. Perghaps if it keeps going then it can be expanded. Article name also appears confused, is it "BaaCamp" , "New Zealand Foo Camp" or "Kiwi Foo Camp"?? The main site lists the first two while the article usus the third. - SimonLyall 12:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Second the Merge from SimonLyall. As per his suggestion, might warrant its own page once it becomes a more establised event, as opposed to a one-off. --noizyboy 23:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• First, I have nothing to do with Kiwi Foo Camp, I didn't help organise it and I didn't attend. However I would like to make some observations... Whether something is notable or not is a very relative thing that relies on what people are interested in. Personally, I don't find some things that are in 'real' encyclopedias all that notable, never mind Wikipedia. The beauty of Wikipedia is that it is digital allowing millions or billions of pages. 'Real' encyclopeidas are limited in size and therefore someone has to decide what is notable and what is not (or what they believe SHOULD be notable) for the average reader of that encyclopedia. Wikipedia allows us to search through thousands of artists and read about their different albums. A 'real' encyclopedia might have an article about The Beatles but not every single one of their albums. A 'real' encyclopedia might have a entry about a popular TV show but wont list all the episodes along with information about what happened in them and when they were first aired. If something is notable to a group of people, not neccersarily you or a Wikipedia admin, and isn't spam or advertising, then it should be allowed on Wikipeida. If you aren't personally interested in this topic, you don't have to read it. Stop applying old thinking to a new, digital, medium. Peteremcc 12:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This article is incomprehensible. There is no context whatsoever for me to even determine if it is notable or not. It has no sources. It needs major cleanup.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Dmz5: It would have been nice to have the chance for a cleanup. The article has been under threat of speedy deletion since a few minutes after its creation, and the original text, which was concise and straightforward, was summarily deleted. The article was then deleted again, while it was being edited. Had it been allowed to exist for so much as a day without this aggressive behaviour, it might have been possible to make a better decision on its merit. I am happy to join a consensus on a merge if it means some text can actually be worked on (I'm assuming our hostile editor is also bound by this consensus and won't then try and delete the main article). Assuming the decision is to merge, who then does that job?Russb10 20:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Merge to Foo Camp. I don't feel strongly about this; if the article was cleaned up more and given additional sources, then it could be kept. When I first saw the article, it was rather difficult to determine what the article is about. The very first, deleted, version was better in my opinion. I've cleaned it up a little bit. Is there no press coverage of the event which could be linked to?-gadfium 23:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • • Changing to a Weak keep, since the article is now better referenced, although the only clearly reliable reference is the Dominion Post one, and the mention of the Foo Camp is in passing.-gadfium 02:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There will be press coverage soon (weekend and Waitangi Day public holiday here). Also to be added: background information with sources on why ministers David Cunliffe and Judith Tizard's attendance was a milestone for the country, plus material on the public discussion on the government's strategy on digitising content. Of course, there's no point in putting any of that up with the axe of sudden deletion hanging over the article.--Juha 23:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That might seem like a chicken and egg scenario, but there are very many articles which have been saved from AfD because someone improves them substantially during the process. Also, no one is really arguing for outright deletion of this article any more, only for merge, so the contents are likely to be retained whether as this article or as a subsection of Foo Camp.
    • Nothing is likely to happen in terms of deletion or merging for five days from the creation of this AfD. If the press hasn't covered the event by then, I doubt that they will do so.
    • I was going to point out that other individual Foo Camps don't have their own articles, but Science Foo Camp does.-gadfium 23:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It's interesting to note that Jimbo Wales attended the 2005 Foo Camp, and appears to be arguing that the presence of someone at a Foo Camp helps to establish their notability here. I wouldn't want to take this as too much of a precedent.-gadfium 23:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • As noted elsewhere, the original text was mine. Yes, there is sourcing material steadily emerging (the event concluded only two days ago), including mainstream press and online coverage. Minister Cunliffe's undertaking to focus on internet peering policy (sourcing is available for the precise quote) signals a significant regulatory direction. But I agree: it's difficult to justify working on it when it has already been summarily deleted twice in a day. I'd also appreciate some guidance on what coverage is considered robust: do detailed blog entries count, or must it be conventional media? One potential issue with merging is that it seems likely that it will quickly outgrow the main Foo Camp entry, to the point where it may have to be split again.Russb10 23:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your help gadfium. I have added the Cunliffe quote, with sourcing, and will fix some of the grammar and add other information over the next day or two. I'm grateful to get an indication of where we need to go with it.Russb10 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No, blogs are not normally considered acceptable. See Reliable sources. Ideally, there would be an article on nzherald.co.nz, since Herald articles stay online indefinitely, but an article on (for example) stuff.co.nz (which removes material after about a week), or which wasn't online at all but could be looked up in a public library would be fine. Something on a radio program would be better than nothing. I don't know enough about Idealog to know whether it qualifies as a reliable source, but I linked to your article in it anyway since it has more detail than the Wikipedia article.
  • Yes, merging to the Foo Camp article will unbalance that article in the short term. However, having such a detailed report of one event may inspire others to add similar reports of other events. I assume that there will be a main 2007 Foo Camp, which is yet to happen. If the New Zealand event does become annual, then it very likely will be split out again, but the intention of the organisers immediately following the first event is not a strong guarantee that repeats will happen.-gadfium 00:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I could live with a merge-and-split, and I fully understand your caution, but a 2008 event does seem far more likely than not. At least one lead sponsor has already committed, as have several overseas guests who couldn't make it this year, and the venue is available again. Sourcing for the minister's peering quote currently lies with a blog transcript, but audio and video of the session is pending.Russb10 01:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• I am interested at what happened at Kiwi Foo Camp. There was a body of knowledge created there and this is an appropriate place to record it. I want to read about it, and I wasn't invited :-) I'm amazed at the cut-throat action against new pages, I've never seen this before. Bwooce 01:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Re: A call for calm: Ta bu shi da yu, I was grateful for you starting the AFD process so we could at least bring some sense to proceedings. I did assume good fath when I saw the original speedy deletion notice and immediately tried to meet the request (even though, as gadfium implies above, the original text was not, as policy requires, anything like "utter rubbish"). But what happened subsequently - including the deletion of the article twice while it was under a "hangon" tag, and the borderline abusive attitude of one editor, who came up with serial justifications for the article's summary removal - is a bit hard to square with an honest mistake. This has been a confusing and not particularly happy experience, but I'll draw a line under it now. I'm happy to be held to a high standard and just get on with putting together a good article.Russb10 02:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think that editor meant to be abusive, though as I've said before, WP:AGF could have been better adhered to on all sides. I should note, however, that one editor does not constitute the entire Wikipedia editting community, of which there are thousands of us. However, I appreciate that you are willing to move forward, and it's great to see many constructive comments coming forward on this AFD now! At the risk of sounding like upper to middle management, I hope we can all move forward now in the most constructive way possible. </plattitude type comment>. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - this does demonstrate the peril of writing an article about something to moment it happens. I am not sympathetic to "there aren't any sources but there will be in the next few days when the newspapers come out." -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your advice, if not your sympathy, Dmz5, I shall endeavour to follow it. In the meantime, I have been able to edit the article now it is in a more stable space, and believe it to be in reasonable shape for a two-day old article. Do feel free to assess my work.Russb10 11:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • Just to note that there are some useful comments on the Talk page for the article itself, including an explanation of the event's sigificance from a delegate, and a suggestion that pictures (of which there are many available for use) would be a useful addition. I'm not in a position to add pictures over the next few days, so if another editor wished to help, I would be grateful.Russb10 22:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - this event is much more notable than many which have survived the AfD process. I think that the presence of a serving Government minister and some of New Zealand's most successful business leaders is enough to establish notability. I am uncomfortable with the tinge of OR about the article itself, but in this case I'm confident that will change as the long weekend ends in New Zealand and press coverage comes in. Orpheus 00:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The OR thing is a bit tricky, given that Juha and I were the only full-time journalists in attendance, and I'm unwilling to manufacture a media story to support my own case (although I will cover parts of the event in my Listener column). I'd also argue that this is an area where expert bloggers (and there were many of those) are more likely to be credible than mainstream journalists. But I gather Chris DiBona will be discussing the event on TVNZ's Business programme tomorrow morning, and I'll link to the video when it appears online. I think I may have already noted that video and audio from the ministers' sessions is pending their clearance and will be incorporated when that is forthcoming and the material can be posted on other sites.Russb10 01:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply to comment - well, original research applies more to concepts than physical reality, so I'm sure that the article itself will pass the test. Difficult to make up an event, after all. Some of the commentary may not, but that's part of the editing process. Orpheus 01:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please keep:This event was invitation only and happened during a public holiday /long weekend which may help explain the delay in external reports. It is notable in bringing together 150 of the NZ internet leadership entrepreneurs in a small but geographically spread country. Mamy of these people had not met face to face previously. As such it is much more significant for NZ impacts than perhaps the related conferences in the U.S. It could be included inside the main Foo Camp article but deserves at least a section of its own. Jakemp50cz 01:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the relevance and context of this article would be improved if the original Foo Camp entry were to provide a clearer definition of the Foo Camp concept. At present, it explains who initiated it and why, but not exactly what it is; you have to go to the "unconference" page to learn that a Foo Camp is differentiated from an unconference in that it is an invite-only event (there may be more to the idea than this also! I should note that I've only reviewed these pages because I was interested in the debate, and the topic itself is new to me). I can see how the main Foo Camp entry could be considered to be bordering on self-promotion, as it does kinda come across as "Tim O'Reilly's Big Idea" - but in my view, better presentation of Foo Camp as a concept in its own right (followed by the introduction of O'Reilly and his team as the creators of the concept) would make the entry more informative and encyclopaedic in style. This would also provide a better context for the Kiwi Foo Camp article, either merged or (a less cumbersome alternative, I think) as a page in its own right.SM Flynn 01:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep. While notability is in the eye of the beholder, I think this is clearly notable to the right audience. I agree with Russb10 that expert bloggers are probably more reliable sources here than a mainstream media article. I don't think merging with Foo Camp will really work. -- Avenue 01:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Colour me totally bemused by this little storm. There is nothing contentious at all in the nody of the article or the subject. This has been a significant event for the NZ tech industry, as an attendee I have already been asked to talk about what happened at foo camp. For a country of about 4 milliion with a thriving little IT industry events like this one stand out hugely, as does the native and overseas guest list. To some extent Wikipedia is recording IT history in our country the making. If we can have entries on Wikipedia about trainspotting (that is of no interest to myslef or my wife) then I am totally surprised that information regarding kiwifoo camp is contentious. Donnz 04:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Out of interest, why do you call it a "storm"? Deletion is a normal part of Wikipedia. No regular Wikipedian is making a big deal out of this! I should point out, however, that we are not a news source. Try another site for this sort of thing. If the event is notable, then it should be kept, just don't say that we are here to record IT history "as it happens". That will almost never be the case! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, just because a few people have signed up to edit does not mean they have not followed Wikipedia for years or understood and followed many of the debates that have take place. This one has been a surprise and I stick to my "storm" the analogy. By the way, when I was researching what the hell foo camp was in the first place I came to wikipedia, and sure enough there was an entry with some very useful information for me. No reason why that information on kiwifoo should not be available to others in the future. Seems to be a very US centric POV to suggest a merge into the foo camp article. Donnz 20:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment (since I have alreadyed voted to merge). I am concerned about this article in several ways. The first is that participants at it are obviously basking in the post-conference glow and are predicting that major NZ IT policy changes will come out of the conference, this remains to be seen. The second is that since the conference was private and has a minimal website or other presence it will be difficult to varify (especially after a year or two) what occured or even who attended, current information is a few photos and half a dozen pages of summary. Compare the conference say to the National or Labour annual caucus retreat, they have plenty of cabinet ministers and their effect on NZs future is likely to be much greater. The knowledge Wave conference a few years ago also had a lot of hype that didn't pan out. I really think the article should be kept merged in until it is obvious it had a lasting affect. BTW to those new to wikipedia, this sort of debate is normal, imagine a newspaper getting a glowing report from a conference that included the phrase "meeting marks a historical turning point for a country" , should the paper accept and print it as gospel? - SimonLyall 09:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I for one would welcome articles on all those subjects you have mentioned. It would also be interesting to annotate them as time goes by and relevancy becomes clearer.Donnz 20:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• "Keep". Really. Enough already. And I'm sick of the patronising comments about people who are 'new to wikipedia'. I've been an editor since 2004, and I think the behaviour displayed in this process is downright rude - and I'm not talking about the initiator of the AFD process, but the actions prior, and some of the comments since. Fastred 12:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Which comments are you specifically referring to? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: re: imagine a newspaper getting a glowing report from a conference that included the phrase "meeting marks a historical turning point for a country" , should the paper accept and print it as gospel? Of course not, and I removed that wording at first opportunity. It doesn't appear there. The article doesn't make grandiose claims. It also now lists quite a number of those who attended, many of them with their own WP articles. I'm happy to debate the article's merit, but I'd be grateful if we could focus on what's actually there.Russb10 17:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge. The event does not seem notable enough to be listed as a separate event, there seems to have been little or no press coverage, not every event in the world needs a wikipedia article. I am commenting here as an ordinary editor, please take my comments in that spirit only. Not a decree.--Jimbo Wales 06:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Hopefully as an ordinary editor you know that "delete and merge" would violate sections 4-I, 4-J of the GFDL (by failing to maintain an edit history for the content being merged) . Maybe you meant "merge and redirect", which would be of greater benefit to any searching for this, and also discourage repostings of the same article at the same "Kiwi"-specific title. — CharlotteWebb 01:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • In that case, move to a temp subpage of Foo Camp, then make a permanent note on the talk page where the history is. Then delete the redirect. However, a far better thing would be to merge and leave a redirect to Foo Camp. I can't see how that would cause any problems :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 03:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As a New Zealander, working in and around the IT industry, this article is both informative and interesting to me. The event was unknown too me before this, and is now of interest. The New Zealand event, from what I understand, is quite distinct from it's American inspiration, so a merge would not serve either article well. Nothing in the article seems spammy or soapboxy to me. As the target audience for this article - it is relevant and interesting to me. Sycophant 02:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • My preference remains a keep, because this was a distinct (if related in various ways) event to the main US Foo Camp. But if the consensus does go to a merge, sense would dictate that the article on Science Foo Camp (which was directly staged by O'Reilly) undergo the same process. As others have noted, the main Foo Camp article needs improvement and clarification.Russb10 21:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and no merge. The event is the first of its kind out side of the U.S. and Europe and of clear significance in New Zealand (including influence of government policy on copyright and the internet). It seems to me that it wouldn't be up for this discussion if it wasn't for the ill considered use of speedy deletion in the first place (a cursory google search by the hasty editor would have proved that the article didn't fit the policy for speedy deletions). -Christiaan 00:48, 10 February 2007 (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.