Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOG (hackerspace)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. LFaraone 04:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TOG (hackerspace)

edit
TOG (hackerspace) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is another article with primary sourcing issues. Of the nine sources listed, seven are of the articles own website, one is a forum, and the first one is behind a paywall, so WP:V is an issue as well.

I could not find any significant third-party coverage of this space using a Google search and weeding out the usual, unreliable sources.

The article doesn't qualify for speedy deletion as it is a building.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 08:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

I have updated the article to point to more sources. This should resolve the 'AfD' issue in favour of 'keep', yes? Ebelular (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why links from other hackerspaces are not valid to this discussion. Is the problem that hackerspaces at all aren't notable (and hence have no voice in this debate) or that TOG (this hackerspace) is not notable? If hackerspaces (in general) have a place on wikipedia, then their activity and postings are relevant (in general) to this discussion, if hackerspaces belong on wikipedia then "[they] are not independent of the subject" is not relevant to this discussion and an unfair reason to exclude them. Ebelular (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, if me reading of the WP:SPS policy is correct, that mostly refers to self published source, which is obviously poor for reliability. But several of the blogs and forums I posted links to were from independent people, not the TOG organisation, and hence if my reading of the WP:SPS policy is correct, these can be included as legitimate sources, no?

I have, once again, done more research and adding in new content, and new different source related to other activies from this hackerspace. Ebelular (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, most of the mailing lists that were used as sources where used as sources of information about TOG itself. As such I assume it falls under the section of 'self-published sources as sources on themselves' wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. Am I interpreting this correctly? If so, surely a blanket ban on all mailing list sources is over-cautious. Surely at least some of the mailing lists posts should be acceptable? Ebelular (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:SPS - For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable. Hackerspace cites could be construed as secondary sources. What is needed to establish notability is PRIMARY sources, those that are independent of TOG (and thus, not related in any way). That is the crux of the problem. Most of the sources that have been added have been related to TOG.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 00:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't quite true. Primary (first-hand) sources are less useful for establishing notability of an association, as they're less likely to be independent. However, the reason I'd tend towards keeping this page is the difficulty of finding sources about a place that aims to bring people face-to-face who would usually be found online. Ms7821 (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the Irish Times article is reproduced at http://geekypie.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/hackers-seek-physical-space-in-a-virtual-world/ Ms7821 (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

I have added some more references and sources from national newspapers, and other non-TOG places. I believe this answers the original, valid complaint about lack of sources. I have also added primary sources to show that TOG has been actively involved with several national events promoting science and engineering in Ireland. I believe this shows that TOG is notably, and hence I believe this article should stay. Ebelular (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Applying WP:IGNORE and taking a Gestalt view of the provided citations, it is obvious that this article is sufficiently notable to be kept. A pedantic analysis of the provided links, desperately seeking justification to delete this article, does not make Wikipedia better. KEEP. --Sprhodes (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The articles linked from hackerspaces are generally notable, and I don't think AfDing a bunch can be doing anyone favours. My attempt at a list of significant ones is here (publicly editable). I agree that 091 Labs is not notable enough yet, but TOG seems to have established itself in its community fairly well.

To Ebelular: I see nobody replied to my comment from 3rd January. I would still strongly recommend trimming down the article to an appropriate amount for its demonstrated notability. For example, the entire "Structure" section (except for 24-hour access) is made redundant by the fourth word of the article: any visitor to Wikipedia can click through to learn what a hackerspace is. And while citing your own website multiple times might stop a humorous [citation needed], it's not adding significantly to the article.

As for notability, I think it's useful to bear in mind the sentence from WP:SPIP: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." This is what you have to prove. If I removed all citations that weren't event listings, incidental mentions in blog posts, or your website, there would only be the first Irish Times article. Surely you've had more interest than that? Ms7821 (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sorry I didn't see the Talk page.
re: sources, aswell as the Irish Times, there's also sources from the Digitial Hub, from the Science Gallery, from Innovation Dublin, from technical conferences around Ireland, from Make's blog, etc. These are all independent of TOG. That's national newspapers, government run company incubators, and national events run by major universities.
Ebelular (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are factual sources, and they don't show notability. Showing that something was listed in a bunch of calendars does not make it notable. It's not a matter of sources that "recognise" you, they need to prove you're significant. I don't know how many more ways I can say this. Ms7821 (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Disclosure: I'm a member of a nearby hackerspace (091 Labs) so I'll just comment here. I think this article needs review from a disinterested party (who is not involved with the hackerspace and ideally not with the hackerspace movement). I agree that there's too much detail on events, with too many <ref>'s establishing minor points. As is, I think the article *borderline* establishes notability (your view may vary). Notability, to me, comes from

What do you think? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – paywall issue is irrelevant in my view. Just because something is behind a paywall doesn't make it a WP:V problem. We cite from books and those are behind a much higher paywall: i.e. you have to buy the book or travel some distance to a library to borrow it or whatever. We cite from websites like the BBC, large chunks of which aren't available outside of the UK. We cite scientific journals which have some of the most obstructive paywalls ever designed! —Tom Morris (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a decent, well-written article and 27 references hardly qualifies as "unsourced". --MoonLichen (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TOG_(hackerspace)&oldid=1140752416"