Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nullarbor (demo party)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nullarbor (demo party)

[edit]
Nullarbor (demo party) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article does not assert notability; looks to be a convention that's been around just under a year. I initially speedied it under CSD A7, but am wondering whether that really applies. Also, someone really needs to brush up on his Latin. -- Merope 15:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few reasons nullarbor is noteworthy/important: 1. It is the only demoparty in Australia 2. It has the biggest demo scene presence in Australia. 3. It is a major part of GO3 - a very large event, including companys such as Epic, lucas arts, nVidia, midway. 4. It supports Perth's IGDA and Siggraph. 5. It is now running for its 2nd year, not 1.

Also, how is nullarbor any less/more notable than: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7DX_(demo_party) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_demo_party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundown_(party) etc...

User is well aware of the debatable Latin, but thats how people refer to it. -- Aboeing 15:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think the delete nominators need to check all that is linked with List of demoparties before they get too carried away. I dont support the article - because it is obvious that the red link user who is creating the article is either organiser or the actual promoter of the event! The user has not even had any editors courtesy of putting a welcome and warning about either 'advertisement' or 'original research' - the notability issue looks like a furphy - its the self penned article that someone needs to explain to a new user for a start! SatuSuro 15:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well I've now learned an Australian slang word - furphy. I don't have that many problems with the article itself, it looks like the editor made the wise decision to make it similar to the existing demoparties articles. Admittedly it could use some cleanup, but that wasn't part of my reasoning. One Night In Hackney 16:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, user who created article is a co-organizer of the event. Yes, I am a new user, and I would be happy to put some kind of disclaimer about it or whatever. As such, I don't know how to argue whats notable and whats not, I'm not sure how to argue the 'reliablility', the event was co-organized by the australian Department of Industry and Resources, which seems to be what is required in terms of notablility? (government org), and was also organized with Edith Cowan University (academic org). Plus plenty of other organizations (ACM SIGGRAPH, IGDA, etc.) Because of the name, its difficult to assert its 'notability' independantly, (since you cant just google for nullarbor) , but google "nullarbor game" returns 43k results and "nullarbor plain" returns 133k results, making this event about 1/3rd as notable as the nullarbor plain, which I'd say is pretty notable.. ? In my opinion nullarbor is more notable than many of the other demopartys or game development competitions already listed in wikipedia.

I should stress nullarbor is a free, non-profit, volanteer run event. -- 16:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Has the event been covered in the media at all? If you produce independent sources, I'll be happy to change my "vote" from delete to keep. One Night In Hackney 16:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was published in Xpress Magazine http://www.xpressmag.com.au/

Propel Arts magazine http://www.propelarts.org.au/

reAKT!magazine http://www.reakt.com.au/

HUGI Magazine http://www.hugi.scene.org/

ECU Magazine http://ecumediaqa.ids.ecu.edu.au/

Some online publications here:

http://ecumediaqa.ids.ecu.edu.au/popups/mrPopup.asp?mrID=748 http://ecumediaqa.ids.ecu.edu.au/mediarelease.asp?page=8 http://perth.siggraph.org.au/screening_20060223.shtml http://www.hugi.scene.org/online/hugi32/ http://www.igda.org/perth/mixer_07/index.html http://pigmi.org/wiki/doku.php?id=competitions http://www.demoparty.net/nullarbor2006/ http://www.aliak.com/node/2194 http://nehe.gamedev.net/ http://www.go3.com.au/html/competitions.html http://www.scissa.org.au/2005/12/11/nullarbor-demoparty-and-game-development-competition/ -- Aboeing 16:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • 'Comment I know of at least two thousand stubs that dont meet the level of sources that this article has to accompany it. What does concern me is that the editor (who wasnt welcomed or explained policy to) is the promoter - I am not sure the correct policy or procedure relative to work through this - however I would caution at this stage any continued delete on sight promoters- at this stage - about dont bite the newcomers and - good faith - as I believe the editor has shown however strange the subject and the article appeared at first - that the subject somehow exists in this wonderful and strange world we live in. SatuSuro 23:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do not agree with deletion - just because it seemed odd and weird in the early stage in the writing up, it is not a candidate for deletion - the article and subject appear to be genuine. My only issue has been repeated above SatuSuro 23:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment still fails WP:NOT which is different to WP:NOTE with which it also struggles. This isnt a WP:BITE, its about a non encyclopedic event advertisement. Xpress mag isnt an independant editorial mag its a paid editorial publication, as such doesnt WP:RS reliable source requirements the others are all associated with the event. Gnangarra 23:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Response point taken on not and note - but the list that I cited above shows thats it part of a weird and wonderful world that does not appear to be a hoax? SatuSuro 00:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Response Please indicate in more detail the ways in which you think that the article fails WP:NOT. The assertion that "the others are all associated with the event." is completely false. Several of the publications listed have nothing to do with the event. If your only concern is that the article was written by one of the event organisers, then that can be easily remedied. Chr15m 00:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Response I also do not understand how it fails WP:NOT. An explanation on the magazines and the "association" with the event:
  • 1. Xpress mag was not paid to publish an article or advertisment for the event, they did it from they're own free will. They independently decided the event was newsworthy for their audience.
  • 2. Propel Arts magazine is produced by Propel Arts, and independent group, funded by ArtsWA. Some funding from nullarbor came from the Department of Industry and Resources. These are seperate funding bodies, so there is no conflict or association with the event here, other than both organizations belong to the WA government.
  • 3. reAKT!magazine is compeltely independent afaik. It is not funded by the government, it has no association with nullarbor. (I do not know much about this magazine, I might be wrong)
  • 4. HUGI Magazine is published online from Vienna, Austria. It is completely independent from the event. The magazine publishes newsworthy events in the demoscene area.
  • 5. ECU Magazine is published by the same body which funded the event. This is a non-independent source. However, the magazine is academic in nature, and so I thought it was worth mentioning.

I hope this clears up the 'independance' of the references of the publications. -- Aboeing 10:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can not find the article online on xpress either, I hope to track down a physical copy for you soon. (I am not currently in Australia, so it is a little difficult) -- Aboeing 10:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Information is factual and unbiased, despite being from an interested party. This judgement made in my own knowledge of the subculture and the specific event itself. User:dowlingw 13:44, 9th January 2007 (GMT+8)
    • Thanks for your input, dowlingw. You're welcome to participate in this debate, but as a new account with no other contributions to Wikipedia, your opinion is likely to be discounted when the final decision is made. :-( Hesperian 05:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed - the issue is one which editors with long standing - are the ones to take notice of in issues such as this. No edit and red link editors are considered in these situations as about helpful to the case as no support at all SatuSuro 05:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. The article looks nicely done, too bad the event needs to grow a bit to be _really_ notable. // Gargaj 11:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It's a well written article, and I wish more demoparty articles had non-scene references. The fact it was started just last year works against it, but we could always decide again in a year or so whether it's notable enough to keep or not. It would help if there were more articles linking to it other than the List of demoparties. --Vossanova o< 14:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this was the version I marked for deletion. The author has then modified the comment so that it no longer says "Latin". Also, I have learned Greek. The article had no sources, no assertion of notability, and very little content, which is why it was nominated for deletion. -- Merope 19:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, maybe there should be a rule about nominating an article for deletion within 2 minutes of the article's creation? I'm sorry, most articles need a chance. Post a message on the talk page, saying "hey, is this notable"? Give them a chance to say "oh, yeah, I hadn't yet posted the bajillion news items about it yet, I'll have that done in the next 30 minutes" or even a couple days. This falls under WP:AGF. Then, if they haven't said anything in a couple days. Let it slide. I'm not a fan of deletionists. Yes, I understand where you were coming from, and (aside from probably not assuming good faith) there was nothing technically wrong with this AFD, but was it really necessary? Very little content is not a reason to delete an article. WP:NOT, WP:NOTE those are the criteria. I made a post to the WP:SPEEDY talk page. McKay 22:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, Merope did see a very early version of the article, and made a justifiable choice in deleting. The only thing I can say is that I'm a novice wikipedia user, so I was planning on incrementally adding content, I did not realise that you needed to add a complete article on creation. I think it would have been better to have a comment and then deleting it if the article is not improved later, however I can understand not everyone might have the time to go through this procedure. I have asked some other people unrelated to nullarbor (other than they were there) to add content. Hopefully that will happen soon. I would like to know what Merop's objections still are to the article so it can be addressed. (Also, "The author has then modified the comment" is not true, another editor made those changes, as you can see from the history I have not touched this article since I was informed of WP:NOT#SOAP "self promotion") -- Aboeing
  • Keep. Whatever concerns the nominator had originally, they appear to have been resolved. The current version of the article is well sourced and does a fair job of conveying notability. One thing for certain: it never should have been speedy deleted, especially so abruptly while the author was in the process of writing the damn thing. RFerreira 20:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beg to disagree with the last two - when a red link user is clearly the promoter and organiser - If you folks are going to ignore that - the whole of wikipedia would be full of advertising before you can say demoscene party :( SatuSuro 22:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A fair point, I'd like to ask you for a bit more patience, I have asked some people to contribute content to the article, at which point I hope it will be completely different from its original form. I hope that will then fullfill the WP:NOT#SOAP requirement. --- Aboeing 10:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just as notable as other demoscene articles that survived the recent rush to AFD them. It has good sources - but I agree that clean up maybe in order. Then again, I understand that the AFD was made while the article was being created for the first time... --Sodium N4 23:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable within the Australian demoscene with multiple reliable sources to show for it. Only because a scene is small does not make it not-noteworthy, I thought this is now mainstream wisdom since Web 2.0 and the "Long Tail" roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 09:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the references in the article #1 Sponsor of 2007 event, #3 a calander for 2007 event #4 is the advert for 2007 event none of these source meet WP:RS requirements. The most significant reference #2 a government/industry funded body to promote computer industry in WA quotes "Over 150 people attended the event!" such a significant number people for a city with a population 1.5~1.6 million people thats like a whole 0.01% of the population how is this notiable. as per WP:NOT#SOAP this article is about advertising the event all references used are advertising for this years event, the references cited/claims earlier in this discussion are not used in the article. Gnangarra 10:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response There are more solid references here in this page, but I have not wanted to modify this article as to avoid WP:NOT#SOAP. I hope to have even more solid references for you soon. The quotation you've included I believe only referes to the screening, which is one part of the entire event. Just to clarify, I thought your remaing objetions were WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:RS, and that WP:NOTE is no longer an issue. Would you be able to clarify your position? Also, I have been assuming that if the article was rewritten by another editor it would no longer be WP:NOT#SOAP, is that correct?-- Aboeing 10:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also note that #2, SIGGRAPH is not a government or industry sponsored body. It is a organization of researchers, and are fiercly independent from any gov or ind influence. see http://www.perth.siggraph.org.au/credits_links.shtml for SIGGRAPH Perth supporters. --- Aboeing 11:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, ACM SIGGRAPH's reputable is unimpeachable, and the reference does indeed support the relevant claim. But it is still a pretty pathetic reference. :-( You were always going to be skating on thin ice if these four references are all that has ever been written about the event. Next year, at least fire off a press release to ECU's student newspaper letting them know how it went. Then you'll have something worth citing! Hesperian 11:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:NOTE primary criteria The "independence" qualification excludes all self-publicity, advertising by the subject, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works affiliated with the subject, its creators, or others with a vested interest or bias every reference in the article clearly fails this requirement as well. The link to credits for ACM SIGGRAPH clearly the logo of four bodies 2 governement based eduction funded bodies, 1 body thats funded by both government and industry and the forth is partially funded by the government, that page doesnt indicate its fiercly independant. Funding aside WP:NOT#SOAP still applies the sources fail WP:RS and as quoted from WP:NOTE it doesnt pass the primary criteria of that. Gnangarra 12:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Longhair\talk 10:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am dumbfounded that an article which was created less than a week ago, which is referenced, is up for deletion already... speedy delete if it meets the criteria is one thing but this is bizzare. If uni was back the article would have been expanded I am sure simply by contribution of Edith Cowan computing students. How many other games dev competitions / events are there in Perth???Garrie 05:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a set of nullarbor articles in the media here:

http://www.notrees.org/media_coverage/ Including:

  • Interview with Martin Masek. Korea Science Magazine (A monthly magazine for science teachers), Volume 503, Issue 9, 2006, pp96 – 101.
  • Xpress Magazine, Western Australia, Issue No. 992, 16/02/06, p29.
  • Campus Buzz, News for ECU Students – Incorporating harambee Student Guild News, Winter 2006, p7.
  • Cohesion, Faculty of Computing, Health, and Science Quarterly Magazine, March 2006, p21.

See: http://www.notrees.org/media_coverage/Nullarbor%2006%20-%20Xpress%20Magazine%20Issue%20992,%2016-02-06,%20p29.jpg http://www.notrees.org/media_coverage/Nullarbor%2006%20-%20Korea%20Science%20Magazine%20Vol503,%20Issue%209,%202006.%20pp96-101.jpg http://www.notrees.org/media_coverage/Nullarbor%2006%20-%20Cohesion,%20Faculty%20of%20Computing,%20Health,%20and%20Science%20Quarterly%20Magazine,%20March%202006,%20p21.gif http://www.notrees.org/media_coverage/Nullarbor%2006%20-%20Campus%20Buzz,%20Winter%202006,%20p7.jpg -- Aboeing 14:44, 12 January 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nullarbor_(demo_party)&oldid=1138172794"