Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NoooN

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. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NoooN[edit]

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

There are only claims, not facts, about this subject's notability. Λeternus ^(talk) 22:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see how this group could possibly meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The facts are in the article. Numtek (talk)

For them for to be "facts" we require that they be verified by independent reliable sources. Otherwise they remain "claims". Beyond any facts or claims we still need evidence that the organisation is notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here you go. This is the results.txt of Assembly 1995: https://www.scene.org/file.php?file=%2Fparties%2F1995%2Fassembly95%2Fresults.txt&fileinfo Numtek (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is that single line supposed to be significant coverage of? St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It shows that they won first prize in the PC demo competition at Assembly 1995. Another first place include best graphics at Solskogen 2009 and a few runner ups.[1] // Liftarn (talk)

Then we would need evidence to support the suggestion that either of those are awards significant enough to confer some form of notability. Because we're nowhere near WP:GNG. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's only the world's largest gathering of demo programmers.[2] It's about the equivalent of winning an Oscar for an actor. // Liftarn (talk)

The difference is, every time an Oscar is awarded, there are tens and tens of news articles published about the winners, making the winners notable. No such articles seem to exist about Assembly winners, or at least not about NoooN. -- intgr [talk] 12:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we take a hint from WP:MUSBIO it enough to "Has won or placed in a major music competition.". I see no reason to hold demo groups to a different standard. // Liftarn (talk)

Ok, ignoring the fact that demogroups are not bands, I think it's a huge leap to claim that the Assembly competition is comparable to major music competitions. Sure, it may be the largest democompo, but compared to music competitions it's just a tiny niche.

That MUSBIO clause dates back to at least 2006, back when this stuff was still being figured out. I disagree with clauses that let people "weasel out" from creating verifiable articles. But it hasn't been a big problem for music articles because "major" music events generate sufficient media coverage to satisfy notability anyway. You cannot say the same for democompos, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

To demonstrate this point, a quick Google News search test finds 1 result for "assembly summer 2014" (and it's just a passing mention), compared to 2600 for "eurovision song contest 2014". For a normal Google search (not news) the numbers are 32,100 vs 20 million. -- intgr [talk] 14:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a difference. The Eurovision is a song competition. A large one, but not the largest. Assembly is the largest demo party. That a mainstream event and a subculture event does not get as much media coverage is no wonder and still not a valid reason for deletion. // Liftarn (talk)

The reasons are listed at WP:WHYN. Long story short, writing a fair and verifiable Wikipedia article is impossible about subjects that don't satisfy notability. It's only possible for someone with a close connection with the subject, or based on hearsay, both of which lead to abuse. -- intgr [talk] 20:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As we have established notability (they won first prize in the major demo competition). We have reliable sources for that (not as much as for a Eurovision winner, but still). So what's the problem? Please see WP:NONPROFIT. // Liftarn (talk)

We have established that Assembly is not comparable to major music competitions, demogroups are not bands, and reliable sources with significant coverage don't exist. Winning contests if there's no significant media coverage doesn't improve notability at all.

If I host the world's largest nose-picking contest and publish the results on the web, that doesn't make the winner notable. Being the largest at something is irrelevant, that's not how notability works, sorry. -- intgr [talk] 08:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your first two points are irrelevant for this discussion and we do have reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk)

Those sources don't provide the subject with significant coverage and so what they do provide isn't enough to substantiate notability per WP:ORGDEPTH which is the standard we should be applying (rather than trying to shoehorn WP:BAND or something else unrelated). We have a consensus-established standard for the notability of groups and without significant coverage attesting to the notability of this group, it isn't notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have established that NoooN have won first prize in the major demo competition (supported by reliable sources). We also have (via reliable sources) established that the Assembly party is indeed very notable. But perhaps we do need a new notability guideline for demoscene related articles or perhaps consideration should be given to a form of notability which takes into account the wider context in which that subject exists. // Liftarn (talk)

Well, we've established that they've won an award but there's not much there to establish that its a notable award or that winning it might contribute to notability. As pointed out above, winning an award (even the major award) doesn't confer automatic notability. In fact, proponents have conceded that the whole subject exists within a sub-culture. You're free to propose a new Special Notability Guideline but one doesn't exist now and so for now, this doesn't meet WP's existing and established inclusion criteria. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we have (via reliable sources) established that they have won a major award and that the award is notable. I would say that it (together with a few other things) do make them notable. // Liftarn (talk)

What do we have to substantiate the claim that the award itself is either "notable" (though that still wouldn't mean that winning one would make the group notable) or "major" (recognised by those outside a niche sub-culture as being so). Being notable inside a walled garden isn't the same thing as being "Wikipedia notable". St★lwart¹¹¹ 15:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I think it quite easy, www.scene.org is the main source for anything demoscene-releated, so just start your search there. You don't need hearsay and some googling will lead you straight to that site. so anyone is able to find the relevant data. Also, comparing the press coverage of Assembly with the Euovision song festival is rather silly. Creative subcultures, however relevant they are to the world, get less press per definition. If they got the same media-coverage as the Euroviison Song Festival, it wouldn't be a subculture no? In it's own right winning Assembly is as hard as winning an Oscar or an Emmy. You don't get there without 6-10+ years of dedicated hard work. It is the top of the bill, the end of the line. The only thing that could compare were the scene.org awards, and since they stopped all that is left now to compare would be winning first price at Revision, although the financial benefits are less, it is still a major achievement. It would be a shame to see this list grow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Viznut/Deletionist_attacks_against_demoscene_articles Numtek (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to vote twice. Unfortunately, we do require "press" coverage to demonstrate "relevance" to the world, so to speak. It's a problem faced by a great many sub-cultures around here. The reality is that Wikepedia's guidelines don't favour sub-cultures. But equating community consensus to delete things on the basis of non-notability with "vandalism" is just ridiculous. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought the votes were up again as well. Sorry, My bad. But try to imagine how it feels if your entire subculture gets deleted from wikipedia on an atricle-by-article basis. Yeah, that feels like vandalism. In the end there is nothing left, and there is no valid reason to break down an destroy the work of others. If that isn't vandalism, how else could this best be discribed? Numtek (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The rules" or "just the way things work around here". In reality, someone (or a group of someones) spent time creating articles about non-notable things without ever bothering to investigate policies and procedures. It's unfair to call others in the Wikipedia community "vandals" because of their laziness. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are notable and the rest is just wikilawyering. // Liftarn (talk)

LOL. When did the most basic reading of policy become "wikilawyering"? St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reason stated above. They have won several prizes including a first price at the largest demo party in the world. // Liftarn (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:WHYN is persuasive here. There is not adequate reliable coverage to write a verifiable article on this topic. ~KvnG 16:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only mainstream coverage I could find was a mention in a WP:VG/RS search. The rest is in niche and user-submitted websites without editorial control (scene.org, Pouet, demoscene.tv). There is no evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. No suitable redirect targets. (?) czar ♔ 19:25, 21 September 2014 (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.