292:, 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.
561:(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,
464:
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.
424:
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
341:
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
316:
168:
425:
no real secondary source here. I still included references here because the (lack of) size was a topic in the German
Knowledge (XXG)). I added references only when needed to back a claim, not to just have another source (e.g.
346:
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
319:), outlining why I think the article is worth to be in the Knowledge (XXG). 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.
288:
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
581:
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
421:, ...), 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.
162:
229:
121:
571:"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):"
257:
94:
89:
243:
343:
98:
574:
128:
81:
453:
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
52:. 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
375:, 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
444:
part of WWDC attention. Do academic conferences get coverage in end user magazines (as chip.de) or (business) news papers (Handelsblatt, Spiegel, SZ)?
582:
554:
272:. 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
618:"a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
199:
References almost entirely one, seemingly niche, technology blog. The rest of the references seem to be to non-notable sources. A preliminary
183:
150:
277:
17:
85:
633:
535:
511:
485:
388:
331:
305:
283:
263:
249:
235:
221:
144:
63:
476:
The speakers are well known in their field in
Germany, most in Europe, and some world-wide. (References could be better here)
520:
496:
140:
77:
69:
652:
40:
616:
if the references from the "same" are attempted to be used as evidence of notability, or to pass WP:GNG that states
558:
190:
601:
481:
327:
436:
Even WWDC does not get coverage on chip.de, Spiegel, … that goes beyond the product news: I quickly checked the
296:, would you mind doing an analysis of the German sourcing cited in this article if you have a chance? Thanks.
546:
301:
156:
648:
531:
507:
36:
322:
Regarding the significance of Heise Online: It is one of the most visited IT news sites in
Germany ().
477:
323:
613:
594:
620:, so we don't end up with an article that "looks" well sourced but is actually not. There are also
176:
598:
200:
440:
regarding WWDC (highlight is hit #2, a tumble dryer) on chip.de: None of them seemed to give the
216:
60:
53:
384:
297:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
647:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
629:
371:
621:
550:
289:
273:
454:
406:
352:
578:
402:
466:
458:
204:
57:
470:
430:
380:
365:
293:
610:"It’s the time of the year to write a recap about the things I’ve done this year."
414:
115:
625:
410:
587:"Also new is a discounted rate for students, students and trainees (99 euros)"
342:
individual conferences could really be considered as being one only . Only
563:"Even WWDC does not get coverage on chip.de, Spiegel, … that goes beyond the
437:
315:. When I created the Draft, I asked for help in the AfC help desk (see
609:
590:
426:
418:
398:
641:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
360:
356:
523:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
499:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
612:. What can appear as a well sourced article can actually be
589:
and words like "According to the organizers". Some such as
585:
from a list of links source that promote the subject with,
465:
Apple developer conference might be a niche but one with a
461:). As you can see above, other sources are available, too.
668:
553:, using multiple instances of a single source and other
111:
107:
103:
175:
606:"The video of my Introduction to Games Programming"
529:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
505:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
189:
230:list of Organizations-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
655:). No further edits should be made to this page.
397:While there is converage on other publications (
256:Note: This discussion has been included in the
242:Note: This discussion has been included in the
228:Note: This discussion has been included in the
8:
258:list of Germany-related deletion discussions
244:list of Events-related deletion discussions
473:, 500 attendees seems to be above average.
255:
241:
227:
577:and reasoning that coverage in multiple
661:
56:if anybody feels strongly about it. --
379:it would probably clinch the deal..
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
569:. Another "support" comment stated
469:. Even in the next bigger category
669:Knowledge (XXG) (DE): Heise Online
24:
355:or business pages of the daily
1:
555:Vendor and e-commerce sources
634:09:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
536:12:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
512:12:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
486:11:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
389:01:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
332:16:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
306:15:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
284:05:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
264:04:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
250:04:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
236:04:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
222:03:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
78:Macoun Developers Conference
70:Macoun Developers Conference
64:15:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
687:
644:Please do not modify it.
203:seemed to confirm that.
32:Please do not modify it.
433:also discusses Macoun).
549:"workshop" that fails
447:So, why is it notable?
471:Computer Conferences
608:, or this source;
427:A podcast episodes
538:
514:
266:
252:
238:
678:
671:
666:
646:
604:that begin with
579:reliable sources
534:
528:
526:
524:
510:
504:
502:
500:
372:Der Tagesspiegel
280:
219:
215:
212:
209:
194:
193:
179:
131:
119:
101:
34:
686:
685:
681:
680:
679:
677:
676:
675:
674:
667:
663:
659:
653:deletion review
642:
539:
530:
519:
517:
515:
506:
495:
493:
381:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
353:Chip (magazine)
317:Help desk entry
278:
217:
213:
210:
207:
136:
127:
92:
76:
73:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
684:
682:
673:
672:
660:
658:
657:
637:
636:
599:self-published
595:self published
527:
516:
503:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
474:
462:
448:
445:
434:
422:
392:
391:
335:
334:
320:
310:
309:
308:
267:
253:
239:
197:
196:
133:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
683:
670:
665:
662:
656:
654:
650:
645:
639:
638:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
600:
597:and some are
596:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
566:
560:
559:advertisement
556:
552:
548:
544:
541:
540:
537:
533:
532:North America
525:
522:
513:
509:
508:North America
501:
498:
487:
483:
479:
475:
472:
468:
463:
460:
456:
452:
449:
446:
443:
439:
435:
432:
428:
423:
420:
416:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
395:
394:
393:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
373:
368:
367:
362:
358:
354:
350:
345:
340:
337:
336:
333:
329:
325:
321:
318:
314:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
286:
285:
281:
275:
271:
268:
265:
262:
259:
254:
251:
248:
245:
240:
237:
234:
231:
226:
225:
224:
223:
220:
206:
202:
192:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
142:
139:
138:Find sources:
134:
130:
126:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
664:
643:
640:
617:
605:
586:
573:. This is a
570:
565:product news
564:
562:
542:
518:
494:
478:Daniel Höpfl
450:
441:
431:Tim Pritlove
376:
370:
366:Handelsblatt
364:
348:
338:
324:Daniel Höpfl
312:
298:TonyBallioni
269:
261:
247:
233:
198:
186:
180:
172:
165:
159:
153:
147:
137:
124:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
591:this source
455:slashdotted
403:MacTechNews
163:free images
614:refbombing
649:talk page
624:issues.
575:boomerang
451:Continued
442:developer
415:MacGadget
279:AdA&D
201:WP:BEFORE
37:talk page
651:or in a
521:Relisted
497:Relisted
467:Category
438:103 hits
419:MacNotes
344:this one
290:audience
205:Drewmutt
122:View log
58:RoySmith
54:WP:NPASR
39:or in a
547:notable
459:geheist
411:MacWelt
407:MacLife
399:giga.de
349:Spiegel
339:Comment
294:Kudpung
276:. – by
169:WP refs
157:scholar
95:protect
90:history
626:Otr500
622:WP:BLP
545:: Non-
543:Delete
274:WP:GNG
141:Google
99:delete
61:(talk)
602:blogs
557:with
369:, or
351:, or
184:JSTOR
145:books
129:Stats
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
630:talk
593:are
583:link
482:talk
385:talk
377:Chip
328:talk
313:Keep
302:talk
270:Keep
218:talk
177:FENS
151:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
551:GNG
457:is
429:by
361:FAZ
357:SDZ
282:at
211:^ᴥ^
191:TWL
120:– (
632:)
567:."
484:)
417:,
413:,
409:,
405:,
401:,
387:)
363:,
359:,
330:)
304:)
260:.
246:.
232:.
171:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
628:(
480:(
383:(
326:(
300:(
214:)
208:(
195:)
187:·
181:·
173:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
143:(
135:(
132:)
125:·
118:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.