Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Still Hacking Anyway

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still Hacking Anyway

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is one of the events of a Quadrennial Dutch hacker convention. I don't find that any of the specific meeting particular gathering in specific have adequate notability to warrant a stand alone article per WP:LASTING and it should be merged and redirected, as I have done so once already but it is being challenged Graywalls (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extend: It started out with multiple pages, with a stand-alone article for each specific event. I moved the first of the event to Quadrennial Dutch hacker convention as the convention probably meets the WP:GNG. However, individual events of this convention don't meet the criteria for WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:DIVERSE and WP:ROUTINE. The sources available only get into the event in depth in the relatively narrow time span leading up to August 2017 wgenb the event occurred, or shortly after it. The Oregon State Fair as a recurring fair is notable. One might find brief information about it some time before each year's fair, extended coverage about the fair just days leading up to the fair, then a follow up article about it within the few weeks following the fair. So, lacking something extraordinary and enduring effects, 2017 Oregon State Fair would not merit an article and example coverage like I just listed out wouldn't count as notability setting sources. If something did happen at the fair; and that particular fair receives extensive ongoing coverage about it, it would justify its own page. So, for the 2017 SHA, merging into Quadrennial Dutch hacker convention would be the most appropriate; however lacking a merge target, the other alternative in my opinion would be deletion, because the specific event fails to establish the persistent coverage criteria. Graywalls (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per nominator. However, I think such merger should be properly discussed first on the respective article talk page (brief discussion there shows this may affect more articles). Following right formal procedure is important to prevent later disputes and AfD - in my POV - is not the right one in this case. Pavlor (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep It should be noted that the "Quadrennial Dutch hacker convention" article was created by the nominator, it did not existed before. These individual camps had a lasting impact on the creation of hackerspaces in The Netherlands, see here. It should also be considered that every event in this series has their own article in the language of origin, Dutch. Apart from all this, the article meets WP:GNG. I agree with the evaluation of @Pavlor: that it should be discussed on the talk page first, and thus this discussion should be closed. Dwaro (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An event is held every four years as Quadrennial Dutch hacker convention. I moved the very first gathering into Quadrennial Dutch hacker convention. Each of the individual events so far don't show enough notability to warrant its own page, because each of the event haven't demonstrated notability on their own to have their own separate pages and their coverage is mostly at the the time of the event, thus not having enough notability per WP:LASTING. Graywalls (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Significant series of events that I as an administrator of English Wikipedia have attended on multiple occasions, despite coming from the other side of the world. In addition, many significant hackers, whistleblowers, security professionals and law enforcement have attended the events, which are unquestionably culturally significant and always attract global participation. prat (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- comment by "series of event" do you mean the Quadrennial Dutch hacker convention? Per the wikipedia policies I cited earlier, the sources for just the event "Still Hacking Anyways" doesn't satisfy enduring coverage requirements. I am saying this should be merged, but if the merge is not agreeable, the article lacks WP:NEVENT to remain as is as as stand alone pageGraywalls (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Any sources to support notability of the article subject? Notability for Wikipedia is something other than "notability" in common parlance (I´m sure an administrator of English Wikipedia is aware of that). Requirements for keeping an article are much higher today than in 2003. Pavlor (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment in response to above: Apparently is the largest ever such event in the series. There is no reason to doubt its significance. Past events received similar notability skepticism and deletion threats on Wikipedia, always eventually overturned. There is no reason to suggest this one will be any less significant, so let's spare the drama and just leave it here to be extended. prat (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- reply but appeal to personal experience is not evidence of notability. Per WP:PERSISTENCE, this event is expected to have coverage beyond the typical coverage events receive shortly before and after it happens. All the sources are between June and August, 2017. It also had contents I've had to remove, because it was based on reader comments of Tweaker.nl articles which is always disallowed by WP:UGC with rare exception such as when such comment has been discussed by reliable source. "apparently is the largest event in the series" doesn't justify keeping of its own page without reliable sources that would establish notability. Which ones have gone through formal deletion, but undeleted through the deletion review? I'm not saying to downright delete it. I'm saying merge it, but the merger is getting protested by the article's creator. Graywalls (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep secondary sources can be found at the Dutch wikipedia page. SportsOlympic (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the Dutch page. The sources there are all from August 2-8, 2017, thus making no impact at all whatsoever on establishing evidence of WP:PERSISTENCE Graywalls (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soft keep - The page says frequency: quadrennial; therefore, I think that a label of WP:LASTING is flat-out wrong here. This isn't a single event that creates a lasting cultural impression/significance. This is essentially a convention that happens every four years, not an event that caused a lasting effect (which imo should be seen in the secondary sources). Other than that, I think there is a weak showing of WP:GNG through the Dutch sources: omroep, tweakers1, tweakers2. Based on those (thin) sources, I reluctantly give a soft keep. Ikjbagl (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2020 (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.