Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kewnstock

Kewnstock

Kewnstock was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete.

We read, Kewnstock is an annual party that has become an international phenomenon on the Internet since 2002, due to its elaborate advertising campaigns. And Wikipedia, no doubt, is one medium of advertising.

Some chap in a suburb of Brisbane called Tingalpa has a party once a year. He has advertised this year's as the final instalment in a trilogy, so if we're to believe this, it's already history. Here are photos of this year's event -- I sense that the number of guests were not in the thousands.

The name-dropping is ingenious, so it approaches a hoax. But it boils down to a rather jolly example of a vanity page. Anyway, not notable.

Hello hello, I've just noticed that I forgot to sign the original Vfd suggestion, above. It was posted on 30 Nov by me, Hoary 04:14, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I say Delete (as of 02/12/04, I say Delete to BJAODN). I say so with no malice; the sheer cheek of it made me smile, and on this evidence the author will go far in life. In fact, he deserves some kind of award. Why is Louise wearing a tin-foil hat? - Ashley Pomeroy 10:57, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

After having had a look at some of these films, which easily rival the quality of Feature Film trailers, I find this very concept ingenious.

I imagine this could be the beginning of a new phenomenon - overadvertising of seemingly meaningless events - in a tone that borders on mocking the media format it is emulating. It will be interesting to see is this is copied by others, undoubtedly to differing degrees of success (I suspect inferior, as such idea-copying is usually executed without as much zest - just look at Brian DePalma films).

I also must note that the reference to the 'trilogy' appears to be yet another hint at the detail involved in the execution, as a 4th party is claimed to be planned for 2005, hence reflecting movie trilogys that have a 4th installment planned/made to simply make more money : Alien is referenced as the inspiration, but the 4th Lethal Weapon movie or 4th Batman travesty is something I myself would have had a go of if I were the mastermind of this amusing effort.

Vanity pages are considered those that lack interesting content. But this does not lack content, and the documentation on the site and affiliated pages is detailed to say the least. There's links to multimedia download files. And it is of interest to a fairly large number of people, judging from the photos!

I say Keep. Its conceptually original, clever, and for me this makes it both interesting and noteworthy. - User:Smspiff 12:15, 01 Dec 2004 (EAST)

• Delete to BJAODN. Clever, yes. Noteworthy, I'm afraid not. Amusing enough that I spent some time trying to figure out if it could be saved. Brings up about 250 hits on Google, most of which are simply blog entries of attendees. Is held at the host's house. Trailers are quite amusing. But no evidence of a party that you would find in an encyclopedia. I'd expect to see some alternative or mainstream press coverage, a larger venue, some evidence of cultural impact and very large attendance. Moreover, the article as currently written includes no references to such evidence. (It is also hopelessly not NPOV, but that could be fixed if it looked like the party was a notable happening.) Like Ashley, no malice here, am very amused, and am not saying that Kewnstock doesn't look like a good time . . . Chris vLS 14:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete along with all tomorrow's parties: Single events are not notable unless they have some consequence. The consequence here seems to be that people had a good time or got a hangover. Fair enough in a flyer, but this is advertising for a non-notable event. Geogre 16:14, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • All Tomorrow's Parties should stay, delete this unless it persists and we get more info about it, other than: "If you happen to be reasonably good looking, please speak to me about the possibility of reserving a place in my bed. Once again, a win-win situation." -- I have a lot of far better come-ons that also don't deserve advertising space. Pedant 02:21, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
  • What costume with the poor delete to BJAODN girl wear... -- Jmabel | Talk 02:17, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: I don't know, but the wall paper will be green, and she'll make love to the sea. Geogre 03:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete to BJAODN - somebody's version of Joey Skaggs' "April the 1st Parade"-announcements - Skysmith 09:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Kewnstock is real though!
    • The comment "Kewnstock is real though!" was added by 210.49.36.67 at 00.59, 2 Dec 2004. -- Hoary 02:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I Vote to keep the Article - Reubot, Dec 1
  • You'll be more persuasive if you give your reasons, Reubot. Incidentally, it's easy to sign your contributions to these things: you do it with "~~~~" (four tildes). -- Hoary 04:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The reasons for this are that Kewnstock was one of the many things spawned off the cottage industry that Kewn created. These gave Kewn immense notority around Brisbane. Not only did he command a high-hit website, but other spin-offs included parties (Kewnstock), merchandising (Kewndoms - Kewn branded condoms, bumper stickers, t-shirts and more), Road Trips (Kewn Trupp) and various other ventures. This is why I say that if the general consensus decides to delete, a page on the Kewn phenomenon should be made instead. Reubot 01:15, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• My thoughts on this one are somewhat compound. At first glance, my reaction is to say Delete to BJAODN.

However, to argue that this entry should be dismissed as a hoax clearly shows that the poster hasn't bothered to look up the topic in any depth. The quality of some of those "trailers" should leave people in no doubt that this is not your every-day gag. The elaborateness of these multimedia creations is... well, impressive.

The over-riding argument for deletion seems to be that the event is not noteworthy. While I agree that 'Kewnstock' is insignificant to most, it shouldn't be assumed that there is not a largish mass of people in one particular region of the world to whom Kewnstock holds meaning.

I am a student at the Queensland University of Technology in Australia, studying for a Bachelor of Biomedical Science. I write this as someone with no vested interest in the survival of this entry. I have not been to "Kewnstock", nor do I do know anyone who has. Having said this, I have certainly heard of it. My understanding is that it is particularly popular amongst IT and Engineering students, from both this university, the University of Queensland, and Griffith University. The party is widely known in Computer Science circles, and there is quite a sub-culture centering around this party.

I think it would be a shame to ignore or reject this entry on the grounds that it is a "vanity page" - I'd say it clearly is not. The question, then, is whether or not it should remain in Wikipedia. I would suggest that in its current form, it is misleading. The author has cleverly worded the entry, and as such, made it sound like an international-class event. Perhaps if it were re-written is less flamboyant language, it could be considered as a keeper. At any rate, the point I am trying to make here is that this entry should not be written-off as a hoax or a vanity page.

• • Perhaps it might be keep-able if it was The Kewnstock Festival, with guest speakers and an extensive entertainment programme (I'm thinking here of the Burning Man festival, which is essentially just a very large party), although even then it would have to be a very large, persistent example of its type. Are conferences Wikipedian? As it stands I don't see a party - even a well-attended, famous one - being something suitable for an encyclopaedia. I'd love to go, mind, although I would probably be resentful of the other party-goers because they all seem a lot more attractive and successful than myself. - Ashley Pomeroy 15:07, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep but watch out for hype and promotion sneaking in. Wyss 12:28, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.