Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinterStar Symposium

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 Delete. No evidence that the subject meets WP:N guidelines, i.e. significant coverage in reliable sources. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WinterStar Symposium

WinterStar Symposium (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Appears to be an event of 100 people or under. Article largely written and maintained by the producer/promoter of the event (User:Rosencomet) who has also added links to his autobio, Jeff Rosenbaum and the pages of people whose tapes/CDs he sells. Checked sources and almost all available ones were grossly padded. The two remaining third-party sources were unavailable to check as I could find no evidence of their existence. There are zero G-news hits. There are nn and COI issues all over the place with this one. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• There are a lot of G hits, but from the looks of things, the hits are all either to Wikipedia, or to media that are within a small community; almost exclusively advertising the event. This article also seems to suffer from WP:COI, as noted in the nom. My inclination is Delete. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable, long-running annual event which has featured many notable individuals from many disciplines. From my examination of the proposing editor's activity, she has a personal bias against the organizer of this event--not good WP practice, as we must be reasonable in everything we do. Improve, don't delete in this case. Badagnani (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Instead of just saying it's notable and accusing the nominator of bias, why don't you present a source that verifies notability? I couldn't find one. I agree with LonelyBeacon about the G search results. "Being attended by notable people" does not confer notability --- subjects are notable by dint of people writing about them. Who did in this case? --- tqbf 06:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - This debate is on the merits of the article and its subject. Please refrain from making accusations about the nominating editor, as it is irrelevant to the analysis that needs to be done. If the subject is in fact notable, the article is likely to be able to stand on its own. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - There is a reason why we have the guideline WP:POINT, and it is not incorrect to point this out when it is seen--as in this case. This is a personality conflict, which should not be allowed to color one's edits (or nominations). I'm not certain you've looked through the archives, as I have, before commenting here; you should. Badagnani (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  What reliable source has ever covered this topic, Badagnani? --- tqbf 08:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  Badagnani, it's not a personality issue, it's a policy issue. I don't know Jeff/Rosencomet off-Wiki. His work came to my attention when there were RfCs and concerned posts on the Spam and COI boards about his activities. During his time on WP, he has tended to lash out at anyone who enforces policy, and accuse them of having "issues" with him. But it's not about him. There's nothing I can do about his problems in this area except to stick to policy. If you look at the archives of his talk page, you will see that many people, myself included, have tried to explain policy to him from day one. He either doesn't get it or refuses to. And anyway, as others have noted, his opinions about motivations have nothing to do with whether the article is encyclopedic. Best wishes, - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Association for Consciousness Exploration - lacks media coverage Addhoc (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• delete or redirect to either ACE or Starwood- if either of them are notable. It doesn't matter what the nom's personal views, she can still create a valid AfD about this non-notable event. Anyway Badagnani, you might like to have a read of WP:AGF. Merkinsmum 13:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  I would support a merge/redirect/consolidation of these articles. We might wind up with one good article that way. Starwood Festival comes closest to notability. In the small pond of US Neopaganism Starwood is notable, though I really am not sure whether it's notable in more mainstream (WP, encyclopedic) terms. While Starwood is better-known and has more coverage than ACE (whose notability, like Jeff Rosenbaums is only in terms of organizing Starwood), a merge to ACE seems to make the most sense structurally/editorially, as the article could open with a brief description of ACE, then have sub-sections on the events they organize. I'm not attached either way, but as a writer that seems to make the most sense. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per LonelyBeacon. Mattisse 14:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Association for Consciousness Exploration per Addhoc. This makes the most sense to me since ACE is the organizer of the event and WinterStar is mentioned in that article. Pigman☿ 18:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Association for Consciousness Exploration. I don't see much evidence for independent notability here. Terraxos (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is an event of around 200 people, twice as many as Kathryn claims. It is both the longest-running winter event in the American Neo-Pagan movement (unbroken record since 1984), and one of the most successful. It and Starwood are unique in the wide range of presenters and subjects it features; it does not draw just from the Neo-Pagan movement, but has featured widely-known figures such as Paul Krassner, Robert Anton Wilson, Stephen Gaskin, Ralph Metzner, Wavy Gravy, Jeff McBride, and musicians like Muruga Booker and Jim Scott of Paul Winter Consort - people of international note outside of the "small pond of Neo-Paganism" - and some of the best-known names within the Neo-Pagan community as well. I feel that Kathryn and Pigman, by deleting links from the articles of such presenters as these, and the section in this article mentioning many of them, helped prevent the article from showing it's notability. This merge idea was proposed before, and the decision was to keep then. Please also note that most of the talk above comes from three people: Kathryn, Pigman and Mattisse, who have been systematically deleting material concerning Starwood and WinterStar from articles for the last two weeks, and have deleted material from the two articles themselves. Their argument for non-notability is a self-fulfilling prophecy; they delete any mention in others' articles as "undue weight", even when the subject wrote two articles about his participation, commented in a major national magazine, left a story on the event's organization's website, and appeared at the event 6 out of ten times. They delete newspaper articles because of missing page numbers, then don't return them when the data is supplied. Then they nominate the articles for deletion. Rosencomet (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please view the article from before this deletion began[1]. I feel that if kept it can be improved and expanded both as more material becomes available and as the event progresses. (The 25th WinterStar will take place in two months.) I would like an editor to help me add such data in a way that will not be accused of COI (that is, if any of my work survives what's going on at all). I also ask that a link be placed here to the previous merge discussion so people can have the benefit of the editors' input there. Rosencomet (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• COI note - As the executive director of ACE, the main producer and promoter of Winterstar, as well as the user who started and wrote most of this article, Rosencomet has COI on both this article and this AfD. Per Wikipedia:COI#How to avoid COI edits: "if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors." - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Also, as noted in the nom, Rosencomet engaged in massive source-padding on this article (and others), adding trivial mentions and event listings that did not source any content to the "references" section. See the talk page of the article for a discussion of why these "sources" were removed, per WP:V and WP:RS. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Kathryn may call it padding, and maybe some of them belong under a different heading, like "Further reading". However, she deleted an entire interview in Roc Magazine of Robert Anton Wilson done at the WinterStar Symposium, a description by noted occult author and liturgist Nema of a ritual performed at WinterStar, mentions of WinterStar in books like Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today by Margot Adler, Earthly Bodies, Magical Selves: Contemporary Pagans and the Search for Community by Sarah Pike, Dancing The Fire: The Ins and Outs of Neo-Pagan Festivals and Gatherings by Marian Singer, and an article from Muruga Booker's website about his participation in this and other ACE events. These are perfectly good references to support the notability of the event, showing that it is described and listed in well-respected reference books about such events, and verifying that it is both participated in and discussed on official websites and in interviews by notable individuals in different fields; philosophy, ceremonial magic, and world music. There was a list of about thirty notable presenters and entertainers in the article which was also deleted. This is what is going on: first they delete the material on any excuse (rather than, say, just putting it under a more appropriate heading), then try to delete the article as "not notable". This article was linked to over thirty others, it's about an event that has run for twenty-five years, the only event of it's kind in the winter months (and 125-250 people is a pretty good size for a winter conference, especially in a field like Neo-Paganism or comparative spirituality), and it should be kept. Rosencomet (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I substantial discussion of WinterStar in a book like Drawing Down The Moon would qualify as evidence of notability. Can you give page citations and, since I don't have the book handy, an excerpt if possible? The occurance of the word "WinterStar" once in a book does not equate to "significant coverage". --- tqbf 19:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You can find most of them through google book search. The interview said, "this interview took place at Winterstar" (paraphrasing here). The Nema stuff said "this ritual was performed by seventy people at Winterstar". Drawing Down the Moon and the other books were event listings, in a section listing a bunch of Neopagan festivals. "Winterstar, [details on where and when] and, "this is the 'cushiest' of the gatherings". That's it. See the article talk page for more details. See the RS and COI noticeboards for discussion on the Muruga booker page. It again only mentioned appearing at ACE events, is linked to no other webpage, and appeared after Rosencomet was told there weren't enough third-party sources. They are not usable per WP:V and WP:RS. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Tracked down the cites. Thanks! Agree with you wholeheartedly; these book references may make a case for keeping ACE, but not a case for a standalone WinterStar page. --- tqbf 20:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

WARNING - Rosencomet is now engaging in WP:CANVASSing, specifically of the Wikipedia:CANVASS#Campaigning and Wikipedia:CANVASS#Votestacking sort, as he is only posting to people that have supported his position in past AfDs or content disputes: User:Viriditas, User:Septagram, User:Modemac, User:Dave Null. Rosencomet, I will repeat this on your talk page, but if you continue after this warning, what you are doing is a blockable offense, especially as you have done it multiple times before. This is your only warning. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Any event that lasted 25 years serving the spiritual community is notable and this one has featured some very famous people including a rare talk by Robert Anton Wilson just a frew years before his parting and been mentioned in several reference books. In fact those citations should be put back in the article and the list of past participants too. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vittala (talk • contribs) — Vittala (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete not notable. A google news search for "WinterStar Symposium" yields no hits. [2] AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Newsworthiness is one, but not the only, factor in notability. Had someone died there, there would have been many Google news hits, but would that have made the event any more worthy of an article? Rosencomet (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Whether it's 100 or 200 people makes no difference, nor does longevity. --Calton | Talk 00:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• comment judging an event on which speakers speak at it is not relevant as "notability is not inherited," plus speakers will go where they are paid to go, or will get some opportunities to sell themselves/their wares from going. Merkinsmum 00:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I disagree. Speakers turn down events all the time based on the type of event and whether they wish to be associated with the organization hosting it or its purpose. Repeated participation shows support for them. Also, many of the speakers and entertainers appear at WinterStar without pay. Though they are not the only factors, I think the caliber of those appearing at an event does lend notability to the event, as does both attendance and longevity. Why not?Rosencomet (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never known speakers turn down any money to give a talk, or even an oppoortunity to sell their books etc. If they did, that event must have a really bad rep! And I don't think you should really be participating to this extent/arguing in an AfD about your own event, to be honest. But that's just my opinion and interpretation of what is and isn't bad form and WP:COI.:) Merkinsmum 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep For 18 years now, recordings made of guest lectures and classes at WinterStar have been an annual staple of my syndicated radio show, The Hour of Slack (weekly Church of the SubGenius production). I sell 2 DVDs and 3 CDs of recordings made at WinterStar of my own performances. I know from the catalogs of many of the other guest speakers that for them also, WinterStar is an invaluable platform perfect for delivering and recording lectures or performances in a non-chaotic and very supportive environment. I can think offhand of many excellent recordings by notable performers and authors that would never have made it into public circulation had WinterStar not been the venue where they could be well recorded and well recieved. Some of these are in the ACE catalog and even more are in the catalogs of the specific artists. From the point of view of an author who has benefitted from the event for almost two decades, Winterstar is very definitely noteworthy and deserving of its own modest page. It is very different from Starwood -- smaller, indeed, but BECAUSE of its smaller size it is in some ways a better venue for more serious discussions, classes, lectures, etc. It is a different animal altogether and should not be lumped in with Starwood. Note: When I google "Winterstar" I find a dozen mentions of this specific festival, NOT from ACE-related sites, in the first three pages of listings. It is not just a "pagan" festival but more of an all-purpose "Utne Reader" of a fringe-fest, with programs for SubGeniuses, conspiracy buffs, and those interested in alternate energy, alternate health, environmentalism, history, etc. I have been involved in a dozen short-lived such festivals but WinterStar has remained a stable annual event for 25 years! RevStang (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC) — Revstang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• COI Note: Per this edit summary: [3], Revstang (talk · contribs) is "involved in Starwood and Winterstar organization, a member of ACE". Also, Stang produces the publicity mailings for Winterstar (I have one here). Therefore, Revstang has a Conflict of Interest on this article and this AfD. Per Wikipedia:COI#How to avoid COI edits: "if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors." Pigman☿ 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or smerge, not independently notable as established by lack of credible independent sources. Guy (Help!) 00:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete or redirect, or merge into something that is notable, per Guy. Mattisse 00:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Sorry, but you've !voted twice. If you want to alter your previous statement, I'd suggest amending that one. Thanks.Sorry, I did not see my previous vote. Mattisse 13:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- Lack of independent sourcing.Kww (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Lack of sourcing means sourcing needs to be done, not that the article needs to be wiped out. ;) Besides which, it's a notable enough article for an encyclopedia. Alloranleon (talk) 09:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC) - Alloranleon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)'s first edit was on December 28, 2007

If WP:RS that cover it in depth don't exist, no sourcing can be done, we can't magick sources into existence. Merkinsmum 00:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. The article in the Cleveland Scene, an alternative weekly paper, is the strongest source. Based on the amount of sourcing, and the quantity of material in the current article that does not appear notable, I agree with those above who believe that we are best off keeping a single article, about the Association for Consciousness Exploration, and we can do without this one. Some participants in the AfD discussion have a COI, which I hope the closer will think about. The history of the article itself shows heavy participation by Jeff Rosenbaum, one of the promoters of this symposium, which appears to violate the rules about COI editing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, I agree with Badagnani's reasoning above (near the top). Lama Ding Dong (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• note to closing admin - Agree with the above, but I am pretty sure all SPAs and known COIs are flagged with SPA template or COI note. I just made sure the ones I flagged for COI have "COI" at the very beginning of the note. However, Rosencomet, for instance, commented multiple times, and not all of his comments are flagged. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 08:07, 3 January 2008 (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.