Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nullarbor (demo party)

Add links
Source: 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)

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]

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
    ]
'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]

  • Response checking xpress archives doesnt reveal any articles on the event, can you provide an issue # or publication date. It fails
    WP:NOT#SOAP "self promotion" no different to any other trade show. Gnangarra 00:25, 10 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]
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: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
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
]
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, 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]

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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nullarbor_(demo_party)&oldid=1138172794"