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 delete. J04n(talk page) 15:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HKOSCon[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

HKOSCon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Taking to AfD as I still confirm my May 17 PROD but that was removed, until Fram RePRODed it. My searches frankly have simply found nothing actually convincing and there's nothing minimally noticeable for general notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I shouldn't have reprodded it, for some reason I didn't notice the previous prod. Having said that, I see no evidence at all (from reliable, independent sources) that this has the required notability. Despite claims at th original deprod that secondary and third-party sources were added, all we have is an external link from a speaker at one of the conferences, and the homepage of the conference. Fram (talk) 07:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - software conference of unclear notability, lacking significant WP:RS coverage. Refs provided are a blog and pages from conference organisers. A search turned up incidental mentions in event listings, including one from Time Out Hong Kong but no substantial coverage.Dialectric (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction. Reference listed is not from organizer, but from oversea speakers of the event. --Koala Yeung (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry to ask. But what does "Substantial coverage" mean here? There are coverage in Chinese media. There are also blog post about the event. There are numerous conferences entries in the [Category:Free-software_conferences | Free-software conferences] category with similar coverages. How many (if applicable) coverage do you think is substantial for enlisting in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yookoala (talk • contribs) 03:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial coverage, based on Wikipedia:Notability, would be an entire article in a WP:RS magazine, web site, or journal, or multiple paragraphs in a book about the subject. Blogs are not typically considered when looking for refs which contribute to notability, nor are otherwise RS sources by people connected directly with the subject. Chinese media is fine for use as long as the media source is reliable.Dialectric (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Added Chinese media coverage to references. --Koala Yeung (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Content supported by independent media and organization, the event itself raised significant awareness in Hong Kong IT field especially open source community. Pwmvx1289 (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Pwmvx1289 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep - It is a open source tech event in real life, I don't see any reason to remove such kinds of articles. Wikipedia is also built from open source. sammyfunghk —Preceding undated comment added 13:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Sammyfunghk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment - Not only is the now added media not enough, the Keep votes are still not convincing enough to keep this considering the still noticeable questionability. SwisterTwister talk 20:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Frankly, I don't quite understand the "not enough" part of notability. Really. Please take a look at the Free-software_conferences category. 3rd party media coverage of IT conference like GNOME Users And Developers European Conference, FOSDEM, Free Software and Open Source Symposium are not that different from HKOSCon. I don't see why HKOSCon is especially problematic in this area. Some topics are much more notable to specific group of people (e.g. IT profession) and of less interested of mass media. Lack of mass media coverage doesn't mean it is not noticeable or notable. We explicitly listed blog post of some IT professions and groups (e.g. Mozilla) who are notable in the area. IMO, if the event is notable to them, it is worth listing in Wikipedia. If you're serious about mass media, please consider to remove all IT / medical / science conferences from Wikipedia. --Koala Yeung (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - HKOSCon has been reported in the Linuxpilot magazine, a renowned Linux magazine in Hong Kong, China and Taiwan, please see here, here and here. I believe the report for 2016 will be published soon as the 2016 conference just ended on 26 June. It is also listed in the Hong Kong government event website. Linux and Open Source (and to a larger extent, the IT development/education) is never in the mainstream in Kong Kong, many people who work in IT still have misconception about Open Source, and as a result how you measure notability may not be suitable to Open Source events in this area, mainstream still thinks it is free stuffs and for fun, but not for enterprise and mission critical operation. Please check the notable speakers cited in the page, they are all renowned people in the Open Source world (you can google them and find out, they are "celebrities" to me), if these people are all willing to speak at the event, doesn't it tell that the event has some influence, even it may just be to Hong Kong? It is the only, and the biggest open source conference in Hong Kong in these years after all. --Anthonywong (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Anthonywong (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep. Unwired and Linux Pilot are both reliable sources for open software in Hong Kong, thus WP:GNG was clearly passed just with the sources already cited in the article. Deryck C. 13:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Haven't done my own search for sources yet, but it seems worth noting that only one keep !vote is from someone who isn't an SPA (or practically an SPA, with a handful of other edits). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - The sources cited are almost entirely connected to the event itself or basic event listings (like Linux Pilot), not coverage of the event. The exception is Unwire.pro. I'd want to see more than just that to keep based on WP:GNG, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Searches for both its English and Chinese name does not return sufficient coverage. SSTflyer 02:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not enough outside coverage to constitute being notable. If there were more sources not directly connected to the event itself then perhaps the page can be re-created one day.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2016 (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.