Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAR 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 of the debate was no consensus among established editors, defaulting to keep. Joyous! | Talk 03:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

BAR Camp
This article is basically a horribly POV'ed advertisement for an organisation. It reads like an advertisement; particularly because that's what it is. Delete as spam.  Páll  (Die pienk olifant) 23:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, advert spam. JohnnyBGood    t   c  VIVA! 23:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I found this page useful, fwiw. If there's another POV, then edit the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danfost (talk • contribs).
 * * This is this user's only edit to date. GRBerry 03:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NEO standards, which I believe are the relevant one for internet memes.  Not enough reliable sources yet.  Three day geek fests are not inherently notable.  This looks to have the potential of becoming notable, until I see mainstream media references, I don't expect this to be worthy of an article.  GRBerry 03:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * On Latrippi's work, Keep. I see a pair of mainstream media (i.e. - non-blog) references added, so it now looks to meet the WP:NEO standards.  GRBerry 18:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note/Query I see the editorial problems of POV and self-promotion. And I don't have a good feel for the WP:NEO standards, which clearly apply. On that score, quality of writing aside, I wondered, why delete BarCamp but not, say, FooCamp? Then, I noticed, via Talk:BAR_Camp, this BarCamp article has been cited by The Hindu in a piece on new protocols for organizing conferences. A quick Google News search pulled up 3 more similar media references. (I've added them.) So, which is appropriate: serious editing for POV or delete? If delete, could someone clarify how the WP:NEO standards apply to conferences? Latrippi 02:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * On further research: Keep (tentative) : I think the relevant standard to apply here (in addition to NPOV which can be fixed) is Notability (organizations), and not WP:NEO. BarCamp is the name of a conference (or network of conferences), not a neologism. It is, though, connected with an emerging meme, a protocol for organizing conferences (see Unconference). The notability of BarCamp seems to be, in part, its function as an examplar of this new type of conference-event, in media coverage and for those in other fields wishing to organize a similar event. Latrippi 17:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks GRBerry! I've now also substantially overhauled the article to address the NPOV issues. Latrippi 04:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Disclosure: I attended BarCampSanFrancisco last weekend, and am now an enthusiast, but before that barely knew what one was. I came to the article afterwards for more info. Latrippi 18:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is a popular world-wide phenomenon. It is not a organization. Anyone who wants to host a un-conference can use their website to discuss, set a date, post media related to it. This article was cited in a Indian newspaper (check talk page). - Ganeshk  ( talk ) 04:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ganeshk, I meant organization in a loose sense: To be a BarCamp, I believe the un-conf needs to be logged on the BarCamp wiki, as mentioned in this Dummy's Guide (see "Who can organize BarCamp"). Latrippi 17:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep For 'Notability' you've got international scope and coverage in the mainstream press (The Hindu, with circulation > 1 million, and Business 2.0, with something like 500k readers) cks 04:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the reasons discussed.


 * 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.