Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kewlers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Gargaj 12:12, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

As of 12:12, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC), the votes are: 11 keeps (discarding SKissel's vote - sorry scamp, that's the law here), 1 delete. Clean and nice consensus to keep. // Gargaj 12:12, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

[edit] Kewlers

Even if demo groups were notable, this one looks too wannabe to be so. Radiant! 13:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • EXTREME KEEP. As was already noted in this article, Kewlers have won several awards including the International Scene Organization's "2003 scene.org awards", the most prestigious award one can receive and the analogous equivalent to the Academy Awards for the demoscene. They were also the single most nominated group for the recently announced (as of this month) 2004 scene.org awards. Did you get the memo? Next time just fucking google it and not waste everyones time with ANOTHER wholly unwarranted vfd. —RaD Man (talk) 19:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, Hey RaD, man, google is not the only test. For example, there is Alexa, which seems to indicate that many of these demoscene web sites are pretty obscure. If scene.org has an Alexa rank of 215,000, being absolutely the most famous dudes on that site isn't very convincing. There is also Google Groups, which has only 39 hits for "Kewlers" . You obviously think the demoscene is notable and confers notability on its leading figures; but other people are entitled to disagree. So, chill, please; be a bit civil, and stop trying to force your opinion through on bluster. --BM 21:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • RaD Man is only following suit - VfD something on Wiki and everyone will attack/defend it with Google hit stats. (I know it's silly, but still it's a fact that they do it and this is the best precaution.)
      About the Alexa ranking: True. It's low compared to e.g. Slashdot. But count the number of websites on that ranking and you'll see that actually it isn't bad at all compared to a repository-site. // Gargaj 21:41, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
    • Comment -- Regardless of what is on Google, news sites, and other references, it should really all depend on if the demoscene is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 21:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, maybe it only looks only "too wannabe to be so" because there are only membership- and release-listings, some describing text about what the group does would be good. MadenMann
    • FYI: According to the page history, this comment was made by 212.202.210.221. Zzyzx11 21:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah right. Because I still don't have an own account (the reason for my "neutrality" here and on other VfDs). For correcting mistakes I was never in a need of one. MadenMann @ 04:45 UTC+1 with the same IP as above.
        • MadenMann— Your demoscene edits are no doubt valuable contribs to Wikipedia, why not just log in with an actual user account so your votes will be considered at the close of vfd? —RaD Man (talk) 07:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • keep keep keep keep. i have no clue where you get it from that is looks "wannabe", radiant. it's informative and simple. -kusma
    • FYI: According to the page history, this comment was made by 195.18.161.22. Zzyzx11 21:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. "numerous awards" from a marginally notable awarder. Mikkalai 21:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, though I might be willing to vote keep if there were some sort of introductory paragraph providing a description and context about all these meaningless lists. Gamaliel 21:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Like this? // Gargaj 23:09, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
      • Much better. Changing my vote to a weak keep based on the awards. I will note that I think this was a perfectly legitimate vfd listing given the sad state of the article at the time and once again lament the lack of civility on vfd. Gamaliel 23:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment. This article was in much better shape than many of the botanical sub-stubs I've been marking recently (which are, for the most part, being kept). BM also raises an interesting point: What "test" must an article pass in order for an article to be kept? Kewlers for example receives 2830 hits [1]. Is that not enough? Must it also achieve a high number of Alexa points on an awards site which it is not directly related to? How do demoscene groups compare in notability in contrast to, for example, internet memes? No vote. GRider\talk 23:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Possibly merge useful info into a demoscene article. Carrp | Talk 22:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm changing my vote to keep. This article is much better now. I like when that happens. Carrp | Talk 04:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with reservations. Needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 00:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the myopia shown by the average deletionist tells me i'm in the wrong profession. How much does it take to go thru optometry school? does anyone know? Kewlers not only is one of the top 5 demo groups currently in the demoscene but several members are responsible for a good portion of the CGI coming out of hollywood these days as well.  ALKIVAR™ 08:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • An ad hominem doesn't actually substantiate anything. Radiant! 10:10, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • It would be nice if the article actually mentioned those things, but of course we're already supposed to know that ahead of time, and if we don't, we're hopelessly myopic deletionists. Gamaliel 08:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Gamaliel— It already mentions that they're receiving the lion's share of nominations at this year's scene.org awards. You don't need to know it ahead of time, I already spelled it out for you. If you opt to discount this annual awards show as "marginally notable", that's your call. As I understand it, an award from the scene.org awards is the highest honor you can receive within the demoscene. —RaD Man (talk) 08:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • several members are responsible for a good portion of the CGI coming out of hollywood these days as well - Whaaaaat? I didn't know that. Goddamn, those KWL guys never tell us anything like that. :D // Gargaj 22:44, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
      • I only found that out purely by accident after talking to one of the iCE guys doing similar work.  ALKIVAR™ 04:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • See that's the problem. A demo group is actually a group of people who think they're great and release small (or large) graphical/musical demos to tell the world how great they are. I do believe that the demoscene is notable only to people who are part of it. That is not particularly encyclopedic. The fact that they have an internal contest does not make them notable. I don't think I've ever seen them mentioned on TV or in newspapers. Radiant! 10:10, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • No, you are wrong. Perhaps you have "demo group" confused with "rap group". The purpose of a demo is artistic expression. The purpose of a cracktro is self-promotion. Kewlers produces demos, not cracktros. There are books written about the demoscene [2], a DVD which contains a mini-documentary [3] as well as several academic papers written on the subject of demos, demoparties, and the culture of the demoscene. [4] [5] [6] Now get reading. —RaD Man (talk) 10:28, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • You don't exactly see, say, Gabber or Death grunting on TV or newspapers (NOT magazines) either I presume. Besides, if it wasn't for the demoscene, you wouldn't have 3DMark, Max Payne or .kkrieger. So as Lenin once said, "Learn, Learn, Learn!" // Gargaj 15:37, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
  • Keep. Decent article on the demoscene. --Andylkl 11:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I prefer demoscene-cruft over digimon cruft any day. Grue 12:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep They've released very notable art. -- SKissel 19:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • User's only edits are to this and one other vfd discussion.
      • Does it make a difference? I think the votes clearly show a consensus. // Gargaj 14:37, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
  • Keep, I don't really understand how this article came to be listed on VfD. It doesn't meet any of the criteria on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Dan100 19:43, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. The expanation is that the nominator and some of the voters disagree with you: is that really so difficult to understand? --BM 13:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Reason was suspected vanity. That is a valid criterium. However, per the recent improvements, and Radman's explanation, I'll vote to Keep it. Radiant! 14:19, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 04:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/o/t/Wikipedia%7EVotes_for_deletion_Kewlers_68c0.html"