Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shitfaced Clowns

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) 18:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shitfaced Clowns

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

Article based on unreliable sources, thus failing WP:NOTE. Λeternus ^(talk) 07:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you detail what sources aren't reliable? Surely, links to Scene.org Awards and Assembly.org archives are reliable source for information on who got their nominations and what placed where in their competitions, no? Kusmabite (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about their reliability. Scene.org and Assembly (demo party) articles don't stand well with reliable sources either. Other sources in the article are clearly not reliable. Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. --Λeternus ^(talk) 09:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the primairy sources of the demoscene aren't 'standing well with reliable sources' it becomes impossible to state any demoscene-related group, production or party as notable. Subcultures tend to have little to no exposure, that is their defining nature. If the demoscene is notable, where do you draw the line concerning the groups that make up this culture? It seems winning the most prestigious price isn't relevant, and actively participating isn't relevant neither. Without the people who produces these demos, there is nothing left but an empty placeholder. Numtek (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demoscene is notable because it has been covered by reliable sources. But this does not mean that every demogroup is notable just because it has been related with it, because notability is not inherited. Similarly, just because rock music is notable, that doesn't mean every rock band is notable just by performing this kind of music. There has to be reliable sources which directly cover Shitfaced Clowns in order to establish their notability in Wikipedia. --Λeternus ^(talk) 09:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are way more rockbands than demogroups. This scene is a loose knotted group of individuals who generaly aren't very much notable as a person. They accomplish a lot more as a group, and gather at demoparties. I get your argument and I read your link, but if you start deleting all dempogroups that aren't covered by multiple notable sources you'll find out only two/three remain. That sums up to about 10 people. As a reference, Revision attracts more than 1000 people. I know not all 1000 of them are notable. But deleting each and every group till just 10 people remain sounds a bit drastic as well, agreed ? Obviously you are more experienced than I concerning editing Wikipedia, so I'll leave the judgement on this to you. I just hope that my view as an active demoscener since 1996 gave you a bit more insight in this subculture. Numtek (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just in Pouët.net's database, there's 11511 known demogroups (yeah, sure, there are some duplicates, but not a whole lot). The amount of demogroups on Wikipedia is *way* less. I think you're greatly underestimating the size of this subculture. The amount of groups on Wikipedia are somewhat relevant. And in this particular case, I've even linked to a video from French national television covering the group. How is that not reliable? I can't link directly to the TV-channel's archives, because those are behind a paywall. Kusmabite (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how the quality of Scene.org's and Assembly's wikipedia-articles relates to the reliability of said websites when it comes to being sources of information on their own events and awards. Kusmabite (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Their demo Newton never did this, BITCH got nominated for "Best effects" the Scene.org Awards in 2005.[1] // Liftarn (talk)

Verifiability, not truth. --Λeternus ^(talk) 10:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: https://www.scene.org/awards.php?year=2005 Numtek (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 10 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Besides what they achieved being a reason alone, deleting them would mean this list needs an update again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Viznut/Deletionist_attacks_against_demoscene_articles Numtek (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We keep articles based on their significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) This article has none. As for its importance, no one's saying it isn't—we just don't have any more coverage than a single link to substantiate a full article without falling back on original and uncited research (which WP does not host). There are better wikis for this information, just not Wikipedia. Now perhaps it's worth a mention on a related demoscene page, cited to a reliable niche source as important for the period, but "Shitfaced Clowns" as a topic of an article will only continue to collect unsourced or unverifiable information until someone can show that there is a stack of reliable sources waiting to be used. No suitable redirect targets. czar ♔ 19:55, 13 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources in article. No independent sources found. ~KvnG 15:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG. The concept is notable, but that doesn't mean all participating groups are notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:00, 24 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.