Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZX Spectrum demos

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 no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ZX Spectrum demos

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

The subject of this article doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. The current sources are scarce and unreliable, but even after a Google search I couldn't find any reliable source that mentions something about ZX Spectrum demos. Λeternus ^(talk) 18:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Λeternus ^(talk) 19:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are mostly on paper, but I notice that Hemdatornytt have several old issues scanned and they ran a regular column on ZX Spectrum demos. I think they started covering demos in issue 2, 1990.[1] // Liftarn (talk)

I also found that Your Sinclair did review ZX Spectrum (and SAM Coupé) demos[2]. // Liftarn (talk)

Your Sinclair has reviewed a single demo. Nothing containing the words "ZX Spectrum" is mentioned there. --Λeternus ^(talk) 08:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems inappropriately pedantic. Your Sinclair was a magazine devoted to the ZX Spectrum - it would not have used the exact words "ZX Spectrum" in every single article, as that would have been the linguistic equivalent of 'You Are Here'. It's pretty clear that the article is about a ZX Spectrum demo, by any reasonable reading. Bonusballs (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But still, it is a review about a single demo, not about the concept of "demos", in this case, the ZX Spectrum demos. --Λeternus ^(talk) 09:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was several reviews of different demos.[3] // Liftarn (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discuss) @ 19:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as we have established that at least two magazines regularly covered the subject it is certainly notable. // Liftarn (talk)
Delete does not appear to have had substantial coverage by reliable sources requisite for an article. A merge seems a possibility, but there's nothing really sourced enough even for a merge. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Existing coverage has been established and the main objections to the article have so far all been shown not to withhold scrutiny. Bonusballs (talk) 20:07, 20 August 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 03:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the same reasons stated previously. Bonusballs (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You have already given your recommendation (vote). --Λeternus ^(talk) 10:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability was established in paper magazines. Scene demos were also released with magazines on cover tapes.[4] --Frodet (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non notable. Op47 (talk) 23:07, 5 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, Ansh666 00:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 6 commenters roughly evenly split about the validity of the sources isn't IMO enough for even a no consensus close in this case. Hoping for more definitive comments after relisting. Ansh666 18:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of reliable third-party coverage Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that this is probably a plausible redirect to the main Demoscene article: [5]. James500 (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Third relist now. Wow, you really must want the article deleted and damn all those reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk)
- I've put my reason for relisting up in the template. Ansh666 18:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ok, let me rephrase my points. The problem with Your Sinclair reviews is that, they are addressing individual demos, not the concept of demos. For example, if we have reviews about Nine Inch Nails, but not about their genre (industrial), we may establish the notability of Nine Inch Nails, but not that of industrial music. For industrial's music notability to be established, we need sources that directly cover industrial music, not Nine Inch Nails. Your Sinclair articles are not addressing our topic directly - we may have articles about these individual demos, but not about the category of ZX Spectrum demos. And, as far as I can tell about the other sources, even if we take them as reliable, they aren't saying anything about ZX Spectrum demos at length. So I don't think we have established ZX Spectrum demos notability at all. We are far from it. --Λeternus ^(talk) 19:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is utter nonsense. Your parallel is faulty. You would say that if we had several magazines with sections about industrial music writing about various industrial albums and that would not establish any notability. Notability is already demonstrated with the coverage. What you are talking about is sourcing of specific facts. // Liftarn (talk)

Please see WP:NOTINHERITED. --Λeternus ^(talk) 09:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but that does not apply here. // Liftarn (talk)

Why not? --Λeternus ^(talk) 12:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews also comments on ZX Spectrum demos as a whole. // Liftarn (talk)

I read them again, and I didn't find a single sentence that said something about ZX Spectrum demos in general. Could you please provide some citations if you find something? --Λeternus ^(talk) 13:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the article. I've also added a few books that describe it. // Liftarn (talk)

Keep The same issues with this AfD appear in the recent AfD for the Unreal (demo) article [6]. There is a black hole of easily available sources for this pre-internet early consumer computer technology period, and such as there are will be impossible to source unless you go out and buy them as a collector. I can't speak for the start of Λeternus, but the world did not start in the year 1996 and proof of existence or importance is not dependent on Google. To anyone aware of this technology period, the article is so obviously about a real thing (and a notable thing). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually, Google is a pretty good tool at finding if something is notable. However, I agree that there are many other ways in establishing something's notability at Wikipedia. You are welcome to provide any reliable source you find, online or physical. But per WP:V, Wikipedia does not accept original research, and the information on it should be based on external reliable sources. That is how Wikipedia operates. --Λeternus ^(talk) 18:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - As it is now the article is supported by eight newspaper articles and seven books. Looks verifiable enough and puts it way ahead of articles such as Commodore 64 demos and Amiga demos (no sources in text). // Liftarn (talk)
Keep - magazines at the time (3 or 4 of them) even encouraged readers to send them it. It was a lively scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.144.23.213 (talk) 20:19, 9 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.