pouët.net

obsolutely! But we still all rolled around in it.

Well, that's why I initially said "devote some time to finding... references", because fleshing out the existing articles and reinforcing their notability is a more legitimate way to defeat the deletionists.

What strikes me ironic, and one of wikipedia's great failings, is that there's a running ticker of articles flagged for deletion. Deletionists can and do hang out there, and flood any article with "not notable!" votes. But when someone connected to an article tries to muster support for the other side, it's a policy violation?

It's awfully easy to get bitter and mean-spirited about this. I have to keep reminding myself to assume good faith and try to take the high road.

the trick is to realize that two can play that game :)

Yes, make a secret investigation about what the deletionists are interested in (if anything) and strike them where it hurts :)

hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/[Username]

hint: don't.

myself, it's just wikipedia. an article deletion wont stop blockparty from happening. and, come on, admit it: the party probably is indeed a lot less notable than the ringtone with the same name. how many visitors were there? in the eyes of others, it was just a cozy get-together like there are so many for just about every niche hobby that you can imagine.

Somehow I agree with hollowman. Strange..

but then again, "interesting" is subjective.

skrebbel: i myself always consider notability secondary to the article quality. if i never heard of a band but found the article a good read, i'd keep it.

It's funny how they delete this kind of articles when there are articles with lists of songs using cowbells.

"Oh noes, me and my 5 friends had a party in mum's kitchen and Wikipedia doesn't think it's notable!!"

Seriously, who gives a fuck? It's just a bunch of 3-4 people filling Wikipedia with crap raving articles about how important they think they are. What's next? Radman writing articles about what a pleasure it has been for him to interview himself about his Wikipedia articles?

Some people should consider actually getting a scene life instead of reporting about it all the time.

ahahaha :)

second scamp

sigh.

Gargaj:

Seriously:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockparty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RaD_Man
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blockparty&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tygerdsebat

How much more obvious could it get? Raving articles about themselves and things they do from a very small bunch of people. Ok, maybe including some "a writes article about b, and then b writes article about a" cover up, but it's still pretty obvious.

The Blockparty article itself is nowhere near neutral nor encyclopedic, it's simply good old "why I'm so great". If Blockparty would have been notable, someone else than the organizers themselves sure would have picked it up and have written about it, and done so in an encyclopedic style.

I'd be pretty embarrassed to be involved in all this if I were you.

i admit there was some overwrought bias in the Blockparty article, which i somewhat scrubbed off - the rest doesn't seem much more POV than any of the other stuff on wikipedia. radman's article i dont care much about, i admit.

Radman is the Paris Hilton of the demoscene somehow.

Articles from Radman, talking about Radman. That's about it.

i think it's not just radman, but american culture to type bombastic fluff :D

So let me get this straight, just because 1 of the 5 editors of the Blockparty article decides to make a note about Blockparty in the main organizer's article, it suddenly becomes a mutual masturbation fest? There's several other midsize demoscene parties that also have articles in Wikipedia. Now as to whether these articles are encyclopedic in nature, that is not for me to judge.

nezbie: Click on a few of the links, see history tab, look at the other contribs of the authors. I've just given examples. I'm sure you'll get my point after a few clicks ;)

you mean the Evoke page which was mainly written by Avatar? :)

scamp: Right. Because the last thing we need is someone -informed- writing about an event. FAR better if some clueless high school student or unemployed bum writes about it.
Your attitude is one of the reasons wikipedia sucks: it actively excludes area experts on little-known subjects. If you didn't see it on TV, you won't see it on wikipedia. So what good is wikipedia again exactly?

gbnd: Of course I'm totally positive on sceners writing articles about the demoscene on Wikipedia, there are lots of good ones already. However, that's a different thing than someone writing about himself. It's hard to be neutral about your own pet project.

There are quite a few sceners active on Wikipedia. If some aspect about the demoscene appear notable to them, they'll write about it even while not being personally involved. This has happened for other demoscene topics and parties, it hasn't happened here.

(And FTR, this is the very reason I wouldn't touch the Breakpoint articles myself, I'd be far too biased.)

scamp: Okay, shall we look at the list of active WP sceners who attended blockparty? There are maybe 3. One of them was an organiser. You'll be able to find personal connections between them all because the NA demoscene is a highly connected social network. 2 degrees of seperation between any two people, max.
Anyway, you're not the source of the problem. It's ingrained in WP's information fashion right now. WP is not built to handle anything that didn't get aired through mass media or put into print journalism. With nderground things like this, that don't get mainstream attention, WP actively excludes the best archivists: those who were there, or who were involved. Excluding celebrities/politicians from deleting embarassing info from their WP page is one thing: refusing to allow area experts to contribute until some local paper does a local color peice on them is another.
I'm not trying to convince you that this is wrong or whatever: It's just the way WP was built. It can't ever be better than google news + google scholar.

umm, you guys *have* seen this , yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Textfiles.com.

Read the comments by Jason Scott ;-)

<3