Talk:Kiwi Foo Camp

message: The event, organised with the blessing of O'Reilly, had the presence of OSS luminaries, New Zealand policy makers and technology entrepreneurs involved in developing the knowledge economy in the country. It is expected that this event is repeated in the future, like Foo Camp (which gave its name to the event) in the U.S. and Europe.
With time others will fill more content on this page with sessions presented, conclusions and links.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by  (talk • contribs).
:: Just checked out the Foo Camp page...looks pretty much like spam. BTW, as someone who has worked for the NZ Govt and organised ministers' meetings I can assure you that a minister's attendence at a meeting does not mean it is noteworthy.Saganaki- 06:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you're a bit off track with the "non-profit event...." If I set up a page designed to let people know about the local Boys Brigade Club it would be probably considered be rightfully considered spam and deleted too. The gold test, is would I expect to read about Kiwi Foo Camp in an encyclopedia? Doesn't seem notworthy enough and the text as offered looks like marketing copy - are you involved in marketing Foo Camp? I'm a bit surprised you keep adding the page back, if Wikipedia Admins have already deleted it. Saganaki- 06:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  JuhaSaarinen, appalled or not, and regardless of my or your identity, or my spelling of ministers, Wikipedia is about producing an encylopedia. It's not a journal of record or a device for marketing. There are some guidelines I can point you too if you'd like to know more about editing wikipedia.Saganaki- 06:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: But wikipedia isn't designed to be a public record of events. It's an encylopedia. Both these policies are relevant here WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:NOT#OR. To me, the original Foo Camp entry looks suspect. It even appears to have been edited by Tim O'Reilly. Saganaki- 07:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Firstly, let's stop calling this spam. I'm sure that was not the original author's intention. Secondly, to the author: the argument that the only way that people found out about Kiwi Foo Camp is through Foo Camp is not a valid objection to this being deleted. We are not promoters of anything, instead we are a project that is attempting to build an encyclopedia. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. This will be placed on AFD and decided by the community. My suggestion will be to merge with Foo Camp. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the original author. Declaration: I played an organisational role in the event. My intention was not to "market" or "promote" the event, which is free and not for profit, but simply to create a concise, relevant entry for it. It was tagged for speedy deletion within minutes of creation. The text was deleted while it was being edited to meet the original request for demonstration of relevance; it was then marked for deletion on grounds of containing no text. Since then we have seen a series of different justifications for its deletion, none of which have themselves been adequately justified. Someone has offered that Foo "doesn't seem notworthy [sic] enough". Perhaps it would be better to find out rather than simply speculating. The NZ event was host to two ministers of the crown, the president of Internet New Zealand, several other key figures in the establishment and maintenance of the New Zealand Internet, the adminstrators and proprietors of many significant New Zealand websites, the manager of Google's OSS programme, several lead developers on the Mozilla project, academics, artists and others. Its proceedings are highly likely to have a direct influence on New Zealand legislation and regulatory process. This has already become far more fractious and complex than it needs to be. We are simply seeking to make a concise, relevant entry to Wikipedia. Could you please just let us get on with it?Russb10 08:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand, but an objection to the deletion was that it informed about the event. This is a good thing, but not in itself a valid reason to keep an article. The best thing here is to justify on the AFD page why it is notable, in clear and civil terms. If you can show why it is notable, then the article will most likely be kept. If not, we can always merge it to Foo Camp. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everyone stop! 

message: I suggest that one or two photos be added to this article. Many of the photos uploaded to Flickr are under CC-BY licences, and should be suitable for use on Wikipedia. 
Photos of individuals who have Wikipedia articles but no photo would also be welcome. For example, we have no photo of Judith Tizard.-gadfium 20:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: Just read someone pointing out the article is out of date. Needs stuff from 2008, some tenses moved around a some actual outputs. For example I didn't see the minister do much about peering etc - 125.238.81.94 (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a bit of updating, but I don't know who's attending the current event. Someone else would be better placed to update on how promises were followed through.-gadfium 00:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Had a look. The problem is it's really just an intro and a list of attendees. The two concrete things ( copyright and peering ) mentioned as important in that the ministers attention was drawn towards them didn't translate into the real world. Maybe it can be merged into the main article ( which is pretty small too) since there are other spin-off foocamps. The list of attendees feels a bit "world famous in NZ'. - SimonLyall (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs update 

message: I've added a merger proposal with Foo Camp. Due to the generally closed nature of this event there isn't really enough in the public domain to justify a seperate article. I think a section in the main Foo Camp article should do. Also some of the quotes from 2007 about peering etc look really dumb in light of subsequent events. - SimonLyall (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal