Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macoun Developers Conference


 * 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. There's fundamental disagreement here about the quality of the sourcing. Given that it's already had two relists, I don't see much point in a third, but WP:NPASR if anybody feels strongly about it. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Macoun Developers Conference

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

References almost entirely one, seemingly niche, technology blog. The rest of the references seem to be to non-notable sources. A preliminary WP:BEFORE seemed to confirm that. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  03:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 04:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 04:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 04:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources don't have to be "notable". They just have to be reliable - which they are. Non-English sources are allowed and the subject meets WP:GNG. – by AdA&D  at 05:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a very unique understanding of the GNG (which, given how horribly it is written, I can understand for a user new to dealing with new content). If the blogs are niche and don't have a wide audience, we typically don't could them towards notability, even if they are reliable for the purpose of verification. I'm unsure of the German press, but this appears to me to follow a similar pattern in many Anglophone subject areas where people load the article with sourcing from sources that are famously easy to get into in order to make it appear notable when it isn't. Being a German source doesn't change that this tactic is harmful., would you mind doing an analysis of the German sourcing cited in this article if you have a chance? Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. When I created the Draft, I asked for help in the AfC help desk (see Help desk entry), outlining why I think the article is worth to be in the Wikipedia. I also knew it could be a border case because the conference does not target English speakers and thus the press coverage is in German.
 * Regarding the significance of Heise Online: It is one of the most visited IT news sites in Germany . Daniel Höpfl (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The long  list  of sources is deceptive -  often a ploy to  hoodwink less careful New Page Patrollers. The vast  majority  of them are to  the Heise organisation, but  different  pages on  their website, usually  a page for  each  year's conference, so  those multiple sources being  about  the individual conferences could really  be considered as being  one only . Only  this one is more general  about  the conference. Heise however appears to  be reliable. Not  so  for  most  of the others which include at least two  private blogs. Without additional sources to German  mainstream press such  as Spiegel, or Chip (magazine) or business pages of the daily SDZ, FAZ, Handelsblatt, or Der Tagesspiegel, I  would be hesitant to  say  this article is notable as it  stands. I haven't  had time to  look  for  other sources, but if there is something  in  Chip  it  would probably  clinch  the deal..Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * While there is converage on other publications (giga.de, MacTechNews, MacLife, MacWelt, MacGadget, MacNotes, ...), none of these sites is as important as Heise, so I preferred links to Heise Online. If it helps to show notability, I can replace (or add?) some references using these sources.
 * The articles on Mac & i often are reports about the conference, they are not just short mentions. When I wrote the article, I tried to back all claims and as many numbers as possible with references from secondary sources (Obviously nobody outside the Macoun team counted the visitors so there is no real secondary source here. I still included references here because the (lack of) size was a topic in the German Wikipedia). I added references only when needed to back a claim, not to just have another source (e.g. A podcast episodes by Tim Pritlove also discusses Macoun).
 * Even WWDC does not get coverage on chip.de, Spiegel, … that goes beyond the product news: I quickly checked the 103 hits regarding WWDC (highlight is hit #2, a tumble dryer) on chip.de: None of them seemed to give the developer part of WWDC attention. Do academic conferences get coverage in end user magazines (as chip.de) or (business) news papers (Handelsblatt, Spiegel, SZ)?
 * So, why is it notable?
 * Continued coverage on Heise Online on a sign of significance. Heise Online is not just one ot the most visited pages in the German IT szene: The German equivalent to slashdotted is geheist). As you can see above, other sources are available, too.
 * With 500 attendees, it gathers a significant part of the Apple developers in Europe. I'm not 100% sure (no reference but my own extensive search) but as far as I can tell, it is not only the biggest Apple developer conference in Europe but also the third biggest (behind WWDC and AltConf) world-wide. Apple developer conference might be a niche but one with a Category. Even in the next bigger category Computer Conferences, 500 attendees seems to be above average.
 * The speakers are well known in their field in Germany, most in Europe, and some world-wide. (References could be better here)Daniel Höpfl (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable "workshop" that fails GNG, using multiple instances of a single source and other Vendor and e-commerce sources with advertisement (WP:NOT) and promotional tones. I read the article and looked at references first for my own assessment before looking at comments. The article is by far sourced with "Heise online" and a problem is that "many mentions" from the same source all count as one for notability. I started going through the sources, that are mostly just product news, which is mentioned in a "keep !vote above, "Even WWDC does not get coverage on chip.de, Spiegel, … that goes beyond the product news.". Another "support" comment stated "So, why is it notable? Continued coverage on Heise Online on a sign of significance. Heise Online is not just one ot the most visited pages in the German IT szene (sic):". This is a boomerang and reasoning that coverage in multiple reliable sources not connected to the subject is required. The subject is a yearly workshop "conference" that charges attendees for participation. "Speciality" sources reflect advertisement (WP:NOT) such as a link from a list of links source that promote the subject with, "Also new is a discounted rate for students, students and trainees (99 euros)" and words like "According to the organizers". Some such as this source are self published and some are self-published blogs that begin with "The video of my Introduction to Games Programming", or this source; "It’s the time of the year to write a recap about the things I’ve done this year.". What can appear as a well sourced article can actually be refbombing if the references from the "same"  are attempted to be used as evidence of notability, or to pass WP:GNG that states "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.", so we don't end up with an article that "looks" well sourced but is actually not. There are also WP:BLP issues.  Otr500 (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2018 (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.