Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 5
February 5
[edit]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 Redirect to Anarchy and merge. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This article was link from a badly linked list, also, it is a rather useless subject. I vote it be deleted, since it has been orphaned as well. --Jimius 13:25, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The above was begun by user:Jimius. I am attempting to finish the procedure for him. (placed note on his user talk page). merge somewhere and delete. trivia. RJFJR 04:06, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge anything useable to Quake III Arena, and add redirect. Megan1967 05:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, cruft. Wyss 22:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect turn this page into a redirect for a misspelling of Anarchy ALKIVAR™
08:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) - Merge and Delete Lectonar 08:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Quake III Arena, then Redirect to Anarchy. Bart133 (t) 02:26, 9 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.
Article created again. Delete --DuKot 03:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am re-opening this VfD in line with the expansion of this to include very verse of John 20. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John 20. Please vote below the colored box. RickK 09:39, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, again. Everyking 10:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I would consider this an invalid listing. It has already been nominated and, by community consensus, it was kept. --Oldak Quill 09:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
- People get to nominate articles as often as they like. Kappa 10:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 10:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as per original decision after this VfD debate - there is no new information. As RickK had already highlighted when opening this VfD on 5 Feb that "The original poster (I almost wrote "creator") indicates that he/she intends to create an article to discuss every Bible passage." All previous votes were thus aware that there was that intention. We now have another vote going at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John 20 - why two votes simultaneously, why revote when no new info? --AYArktos 10:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
- Keep again, as per OldakQuill and Kappa. — mark ✎ 19:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. up land 07:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Again. Still not original research, still notable, still encyclopedic Fuzz 16:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
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.
The votes were 14 delete or userfy, 19 keep. dbenbenn | talk 22:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Apparent self-promotion. — Dan | Talk 15:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: This individual continuously receives awards for his music at demoparties, effectively the analagous equivalent to film festivals but focused on electronically-created animations, graphics and music. It's definitely worth noting that in the last 3 music competitions that paniq entered in 2004 (that I've discovered so far), he received 1st place each and every time. [5] Furthermore, removing major demoscene news portals as a way to manipulate Google hit counts is a disgusting display of biased deletionism. —RaD Man (talk) 19:57, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Add this information to the article. Notablity should be established there not in the VfD pages. Thryduulf 21:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Huh? Which part should I add to the article? That biased deletionists are manpulating Google hit counts, or that demoparties are analogous to film festivals? If you checked the article you'd know I'm in the process of porting over the documented achievements of this artist this very moment. —RaD Man (talk) 21:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- My appologies. I was referring to the awards you mentioned above, but it seems I wasn't viewing a fully up-to-date version of the article page. Thryduulf 22:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Huh? Which part should I add to the article? That biased deletionists are manpulating Google hit counts, or that demoparties are analogous to film festivals? If you checked the article you'd know I'm in the process of porting over the documented achievements of this artist this very moment. —RaD Man (talk) 21:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Add this information to the article. Notablity should be established there not in the VfD pages. Thryduulf 21:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I haven't yet voted on this VFD, but the article has certainly improved, so I vote a weak keep. Incidentally, I'd like to know where I "remov[ed] major demoscene news portals as a way to manipulate Google hit counts", since it appears the above comment was directed at me. — Dan | Talk 00:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Dan, this was in response to certain individuals attempting to lowball the Google hit count coming from well established demoscene news sites and portals. My apologies if you thought this was directed towards you, as it most certainly was not. —RaD Man (talk) 00:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As of 08:16, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC), the votes are as follows: 20 keep, 14 delete, 1 neutral, 3 suspect votes from brand new user accounts. Any vote of "userfy" was counted as a delete. If you add or change your vote please update this section accordingly
- I did not put the article here, but I am updating it from time to time. the article exists since almost a year and has been enhanced as part of the demoscene section. oh yes:
againstuserfyKeep since the article turns out to become quite good now -- Paniq 15:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) - A google search for Leonard Ritter paniq (to distinguish from a Canadian toxicologist and a retired US Brigadier) gets 110 google hits, many of which appear to be user profiles for sites he is a member of. Delete or move to user space. Thryduulf 15:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "A google search for ... gets 110 google hits." wow. Well, a search for fr-06: black 2000 (one of his works) results in ~890 Google hits and ~1400 MSN hits. Google is not allmighty. /MadenMann/ 2005/02/08/18/20/00 UCT
- I see only 190 on Google (40 displayed). How did you get 890? —Korath (Talk) 19:48, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
- As stated below, a search for paniq +demoscene on Google results in over 3200 hits, all of which are relevant. —RaD Man (talk) 20:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I know how many paniq +demoscene gets. You know very well that I do, having called me disgustingly biased for pointing out that some three thousand of them come from just six sites. I was not, however, replying to that, as I have already done so below. I was replying to the claims of this anonymous edit. My reply helpfully appears directly beneath it. —Korath (Talk) 21:11, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
- As stated below, a search for paniq +demoscene on Google results in over 3200 hits, all of which are relevant. —RaD Man (talk) 20:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- an MSN search for fr-06: black 2000 as an inexact phrase [6] does get nearly 1400 results. None on the first two pages are relevant (the first two are from the Internet Engineering Task Force website for example). An msn search for ""fr-06: black 2000" as an exact phrase [7] returns only 10 results, although these do all seem to be related to the demoscene world. No change of vote. Thryduulf 21:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I see only 190 on Google (40 displayed). How did you get 890? —Korath (Talk) 19:48, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
- "A google search for ... gets 110 google hits." wow. Well, a search for fr-06: black 2000 (one of his works) results in ~890 Google hits and ~1400 MSN hits. Google is not allmighty. /MadenMann/ 2005/02/08/18/20/00 UCT
- Userfy. Uncle G 16:04, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
- I cant do anything about google collecting my user profiles. These days, it is common for internet artists to be listed on google in all possible ways. Do I have to be dead or inactive to be listed here? Keep the article then and delete the user account. -- Paniq 16:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Userfy. jni 16:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as self-promotion is all. Ok, weak Keep Wyss 21:19, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I repeat that I did not create the article. Wikipedia:Auto-biography does not mention any policy collision with maintaining an autobiography. In case you find NPOV-critical terms in the article, you are free to edit it. Promotive articles need editing, not deletion. -- Paniq 21:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Granted it's not self-promotion as such, but as Thryduulf stated, most of 100 or so Google hits are for profiles you've made. No, it's not your fault that Google lists them, but that's not the issue, it's the point that there's not a whole lot else listed. That just suggests to me a degree of non notability. If there's evidence to prove otherwise, I'm more than happy to listen to it. Until then, userfy. --Lawlore 21:42, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- I see. A cause for above results might be that in the demoscene, realnames are traditionally detached from scene names which means that demosceners seldom appear with their realnames mentioned, neither next to their productions, nor to any articles published about them - with the exception of user pages where the entry of a realname is mandatory. That means you will not find as many hits for a realname AND an artist name as you will find for group and artist name, where you wont find a lot about group and realname. Additionally, collaborative releases are more common and informations about those often omit member names. Therefore searches for the group itself are most fruitful. It is obvious from such results that, especially in the demoscene, a directory of artists associating them with their reallife identities is needed. There is virtually no place on the net where you can find out about those people. -- Paniq 22:20, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete It's vanity! --Marcus22 22:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: The account User:Marcus22 is one week old and has very few edits. —RaD Man (talk) 20:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. Punish me. -- Paniq 22:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Just delete or userfy as the voting goes, and tell Paniq to stop being so offended. humblefool® 23:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Give him a reason not to be offended and he won't be... // Gargaj 02:58, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
delete and userfy. Yuckfoo 01:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)keep with recent edits. Yuckfoo 23:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)- As much as I would love to vote, I'd call a neutral on this one due to being subjective - since I happen to know the person in question. His notability is questionable among "normal people" - among demosceners, however, he's a well-renowned artist, who developed skills in both programming, graphics and, most importantly, music. His works usually recieved very good reviews among critics, which isn't easy to achieve - if you don't believe me, take a try. I know that all this alone does not imply a Wikipedia entry. Then again, the line is thin. And Google searches are definetely the silliest way of defining notablity; if something produces only a few hits on Google, it means that the information about it is vague, and must be extended somehow - Wikipedia is a good place to do this. Or do I have to put up a load of pages of something to prove it notable? No. (edit: Oh and I just can't wait to get the Conspiracy page to get VfD'd...) // Gargaj 02:58, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity. Megan1967 03:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This person is a notable figure within the demoscene. —RaD Man (talk) 03:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)- EXTREME KEEP. For those with a Google dependency, why not try a search that actually makes sense? For example, "Paniq +demoscene" [8] results in over 3,200 hits returned. All relevant. —RaD Man (talk)
- To clarify, as I'm a self-confessed Google junkie, that search does return over 3,100 hits, yes, but with only 83 different sites, including several of the aforementioned profiles set up yourself [9].
For comparison, searching demoscene +farbrausch [10] turns up similar numbers (just under 3,300 hits), but with a much wider spread of results (almost 500 different sites). On that basis,sorry, but I stand by the point that Farbrausch are notable enough to merit an entry, but paniq is not. --Lawlore 13:04, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
- To clarify, as I'm a self-confessed Google junkie, that search does return over 3,100 hits, yes, but with only 83 different sites, including several of the aforementioned profiles set up yourself [9].
- EXTREME KEEP. For those with a Google dependency, why not try a search that actually makes sense? For example, "Paniq +demoscene" [8] results in over 3,200 hits returned. All relevant. —RaD Man (talk)
- (edit: would appear I goofed with the search for farbrausch, as the figures are way off. My apologies to all concerned) --Lawlore 13:31, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP yet another myopic vfd where "not notable" == "never heard of him" and god forbid we try to educate users on topics their unfamiliar with... they might learn something *GASP*! ALKIVAR™ 03:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Radman's google work. Kappa 08:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or Userfy, sorry this does clearly belong to the personal page. --Qdr 09:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm not as much a fan of Paniq's as many people active in the demoscene are, but the fact remains that, within the demoscene, Paniq is one of the more notable musicians and designers of the past two/three years, and an inspiration source for many. Also, the fact that he did not start the page, and merely corrected and updated it, means a lot. I fail to see why an influential artist, within his community, has to be dead to deserve being written about. This isn't personal, I never actually talked to Paniq.Skrebbel 12:21, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
- This is User:Skrebbel's only edit. Thryduulf 08:16, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Excluding six sites (www.scenemusic.net, www.scenemusic.org, scenemusic.net, scenemusic.org, nectarine.ojuice.net, nectarine.ojuice.org) cuts the 3100 hits in RaD Man's search to 136.
I have no idea how many hits would be notable for a demoscener, though, so no vote from me. —Korath (Talk) 15:11, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)- Since I'm a disgustingly biased deletionist, delete. Anyone truly notable would have a reasonable number of hits outside his field. —Korath (Talk) 20:57, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Cutting those the primary news sites for the demoscene would be like cutting The New York Times, CNN, and Fox News out of the picture when doing a google check on a news story. ALKIVAR™ 22:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Our usual criterion for the notability of musicians is whether their works have been recorded and published, which turns out to be a very low threshold. I don't see evidence of that. Releasing your own pieces on-line on download sites isn't very impressive, even if you do release a lot of them. Google hits for someone who is active in on-line forums is not very telling, either, and anyway it looks like most of the hits are due to intense activity on a few demoscene sites. Notability within an Internet subculture might qualify but the threshold should be pretty high, In other words he would have to be among the handful of most famous demoscene people, and I can't tell if that is so. Otherwise the Wikipedia will become a Directory of On-line Personalities. By the way, the article as it stands is verging on puffery. Notability not established. Incidentally, if the article is retained, the title should be changed to Leonard Ritter, with 'paniq' as a redirect, not the other way round, as it is now. --BM 15:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Excuse me? And I quote from you, "In other words he would have to be among the handful of most famous demoscene people, and I can't tell if that is so." In other words, you have no clue what you're talking about and should refrain from voting in the context of the demoscene. I happen to host a radio show about various underground scenes and know for a fact that this is a highly notable musician within his field. If I were the person weighing the votes here I would discount your vote or weigh it as commentary from an obvious layperson. If you feel something is on the verge of puffery try the button called EDIT THIS PAGE. It exists for a reason. —RaD Man (talk) 19:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- For biographies, my opinion is that they should establish notability in a verifiable way so that a person reading them can determine whether the person is notable. The authors should be given some time to do this -- we shouldn't jump on an article and nominate it for VfD within minutes or hours of its creation. But it shouldn't be many days, either. It is not my responsibility when voting to go out and do research to determine whether the subject of an article is notable. If you are an expert on this, then edit the article to include verifiable information that paniq is one of the 4-5 most notable in the demoscene world, and I will reconsider my vote. Verifiable information means facts. It doesn't just mean your say-so. I don't trust your opinion, because (1) every editor on Wikipedia is a nameless nobody, including me, and in principle nobody's opinion here is to be taken on authority; and (2) given the tone of your comments, I particularly don't trust you. For example, if you are saying he is one of the demoscene people with the most radio-play, lets have some proof of that. As for the puffery comment, it is not the basis of my vote. It was an aside, and if the article is not deleted, I probably will try to edit it out, as I have in many other cases. --BM 20:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "Our usual criterion for the notability of musicians is whether their works have been recorded and published, which turns out to be a very low threshold. I don't see evidence of that. Releasing your own pieces on-line on download sites isn't very impressive, even if you do release a lot of them." Well excuse me too, but I am not very impressed with you having that opinion. What is the goal of a free encyclopedia if it doesnt also support real free music? I really dont understand why you cant count that. regards - Sandro Manke
- I can't imagine a single reason why anybody should be impressed with my opinions. I'm a nameless nobody. So are you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia created by nameless nobodies. This is why opinions don't matter much here, only verifiable information. Nobody is expected to believe something just because "BM" said so. Who the heck is "BM"? Who the heck is anybody here? That is all beside the point, anyway. The issue is whether the subject of this article, who happens to be a relatively popular Wikipedia editor, is notable enough to have an article about him. You see, he doesn't get an article about himself just because he's a nice guy and we all hang out together on the Wikipedia. Maybe that is how other sites you hang out on work, but this is not just another site. We are trying to build an encyclopedia. I am asking for verifiable information as to notability within the demoscene community. If the demoscene community hasn't established any way for the world to determine who their notables are, that is not my fault. The world is not going to accept that they are all notables, and they have reason to be skeptical if someone from that scene is claimed to be notable. If you don't have anything to contribute on that question, who cares what you think? --BM 01:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- What is the goal of a free encyclopedia if it doesnt also support real free music? — The goal of an encyclopaedia is to be an encyclopaedia, not an advertising platform. Wikipedia is neutral. It does not "support" causes. Uncle G 03:18, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
- Excuse me? And I quote from you, "In other words he would have to be among the handful of most famous demoscene people, and I can't tell if that is so." In other words, you have no clue what you're talking about and should refrain from voting in the context of the demoscene. I happen to host a radio show about various underground scenes and know for a fact that this is a highly notable musician within his field. If I were the person weighing the votes here I would discount your vote or weigh it as commentary from an obvious layperson. If you feel something is on the verge of puffery try the button called EDIT THIS PAGE. It exists for a reason. —RaD Man (talk) 19:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This belongs on a user page. Carrp | Talk 15:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, does not meet WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion.Change to keep because information has been added to the effect of satisfying requirements 7 and 3. Tuf-Kat 17:02, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)- Its only partially about music. Where are the guidelines for manifolds and demosceners? I understand that maintaining a new kind of encyclopedia is a hard task, especially because it is not completely defined what it is. The net has opened new ways of understanding culture, and the demoscene is rather young, on its way to climb out of the pit of subcultures, in its own a redefinition of what art is about. While this is happening, the music industry is going down the drain and additively defaces itself as a pusher of taste, obfuscating the spectrum of musical quality with bruteforce marketing and top tens that are primarily constructed from sales results. It is indeed a controversial topic, so I understand that an article about me comes rather early. Your decision defines what this place is about. I'll always love wikipedia and in case this article goes, it might be back in a few years (I hope). -- Paniq 20:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Paniq, I hope you appreciate that this isn't personal. The demoscene obviously isn't (yet) the royal road to notability. What criteria would you suggest for high notability in that world? --BM 20:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Notability is subjective, so I'd say: Democracy. This page decides this articles notability given the facts, opinions and informations that have been mentioned here. The fate of this article is actually telling me something about myself. High notability in the demoscene is usually accompanied by top placement in various competitions on large demoparties (placement is democratic as well, the audience votes the winner) and high activity over a longer period of time. See breakpoint 2004 results, evoke 2004 results, breakpoint 2003 results, evoke 2003 results, tum'04 results, tum'03 results, tum'02 results, mekka/symposium 2002 results ("failed preselection" = not played to the audience, thus the low rating), mekka/symposium 2001 results -- Paniq 20:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I must respectfully disagree with you TUF-KAT, paniq does verifiably and concretely meet point number seven of the Notability and Music Guidelines for the WikiMusic project. —RaD Man (talk) 15:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and be careful with those scissors. GRider\talk 17:11, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. "Notability is subjective". Is it? Surely it is one of the few things which is not subjective? Agreed, one can be notable in a quasi-subjective sense: in that, for example, a small group of people may consider a person to be notable. But, ultimately, it must be objectivity which defines notability: if we remove the notion of objectivity from notability we are really talking about something else. My point being? You seem to think that people on here are subjectively deciding whether or not you are sufficiently notable. I disagree. People on here who are saying 'delete' or 'userfy' are saying so on the objective basis that you are not, in fact, notable regardless of what persuasive arguments or points may be raised. And it is on that, objective basis, that I still do not consider you to be "notable". (Seems terrible rude to say that, I'm sorry. Please don't take it personally!!!) --Marcus22 20:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No problem. I have yet to encounter true objectivity. Even the article about objectivity seems to be unable to define it sufficiently in an objective way, which is a rather amusing observation, contradicting your statement. "People say" is subjective judgement of notability at its best. I doubt that, unless one rests among the spirits and thus is above all material things, one is able to produce any "objective" results at all.
Do I understand your point correctly as "People who disagree to keep the page have an objective basis"? Does that mean that solely people who vote for keeping the page are subjective? If yes, we should call this Marcus' Law and apply it to elections. I regard such an action to be of great fun for all parties. -- Paniq 02:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No problem. I have yet to encounter true objectivity. Even the article about objectivity seems to be unable to define it sufficiently in an objective way, which is a rather amusing observation, contradicting your statement. "People say" is subjective judgement of notability at its best. I doubt that, unless one rests among the spirits and thus is above all material things, one is able to produce any "objective" results at all.
- Let me introduce myself: I'm scamp/vacuum, active member of the demoscene, and I know Paniq for years now. I'm also the main organizer of the Breakpoint party where paniq won competitions at. I highly respect paniq for his work. That being said: I also respect Wikipedia, and I think it should be free from self promotion. This article clearly is. And sorry, "I did not put the article here, but I am updating it from time to time." is a blatant lie. The article was originally created from the IP 212.202.50.46 which resolves to port-212-202-50-46.dynamic.qsc.de and traces to Frankfurt/Germany, and paniq right now is online on IRC at 212.202.50.103, which resolves to port-212-202-50-103.dynamic.qsc.de. Also back in 2004 he told everyone on IRC how funny it was to create his own entry about himself on Wikipedia. While I really welcome recent efforts from RadMan1 and others to add articles about the demoscene to Wikipedia, I don't think it makes sense to now add each and every scener to Wikipedia - and well, the list of people more "important" (and therefore would need to be added first) to the scene than paniq is quite long (though that list for RaD Man would be much, much longer ;) - Delete or Userfy -- SKissel
- User is a sockpuppet or brand new. 2 edits in total... both on this VfD. ALKIVAR™ 07:11, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Are you kidding me? Who should I be a sockpuppet of being against keeping this article? Also I've already pointed out above that I'm the main organizer of the biggest demoscene party world-wide, which already should give me some credibility regarding demoscene related topics, right? I also know paniq personally for years, and what's more - YOU even know me, you've joined a group I was a member of - UCF. Sorry, but if you wish to do votefaking on this topic, please come up with something less stupid :) SKissel 21:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Scamp if thats who you REALLY are (stands to be verified still) you should read the rules and know that new users votes are discounted on VfD, get a few edits on articles under your belt (that are not just on VfD) if you wish to influence a vote in the future. ALKIVAR™ 23:04, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Apparent personal attack against User:Alkivar removed. Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks Thryduulf 21:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thryduulf please in the future, dont bother defending me, I can do it for myself thanks. ALKIVAR™ 23:04, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thryduulf please in the future, dont bother defending me, I can do it for myself thanks. ALKIVAR™
- Scamp if thats who you REALLY are (stands to be verified still) you should read the rules and know that new users votes are discounted on VfD, get a few edits on articles under your belt (that are not just on VfD) if you wish to influence a vote in the future. ALKIVAR™
- Are you kidding me? Who should I be a sockpuppet of being against keeping this article? Also I've already pointed out above that I'm the main organizer of the biggest demoscene party world-wide, which already should give me some credibility regarding demoscene related topics, right? I also know paniq personally for years, and what's more - YOU even know me, you've joined a group I was a member of - UCF. Sorry, but if you wish to do votefaking on this topic, please come up with something less stupid :) SKissel 21:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. Please log in and sign your comments in order for your vote to be fairly counted upon the closing of this discussion. —RaD Man (talk) 23:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The article had been here before as I was told later on, but got flagged for deletion. It is true that I reopened it. It is true that I posted the articles URL on IRC as I do with all stuff that is covering my lowness. It is not true that I "told everyone on IRC how funny it was", however I was surprised that the article remained, thus it seemed to own a certain right to be there. I agree with scamp that there are a lot of people who should be added here first. My lifeline is rather young, so there is not much to mention here yet. I am quite confident that the article will be reopened in a few years. -- Paniq 02:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- User is a sockpuppet or brand new. 2 edits in total... both on this VfD. ALKIVAR™
- I actually read through all this! Listening to both sides, in the end I come down to Delete. I could equally well put my resumé up here (different field entirely), and make it sound as if I had really accomplished a lot/impacted many lives. Which I have, but it doesn't entitle me to a Wikipedia entry -- I have just been living my life, doing my job. Which is what Paniq has been doing. If he was an avid stamp collector, and had won 'democratic' awards for his stamp albums, would we be having this debate? There is nothing inherently magical about music (which, by the way, I love).HowardB 07:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- :D -- Paniq 16:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Honestly, if you were the number one stamp collector in the realm of stamp collecting, YES, I would say you were entitled to an entry on Wikipedia. We're not running out of disk space here any time soon and I don't feel that would over saturate this home to many articles for real and imagined Pokemon characters. Meanwhile, I continue to expand the article for paniq as I believe it should stay and conceivably benefits future visitors who want to know about this notable and highly decorated musician/artist. —RaD Man (talk) 07:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- quite notable and decently decorated. total domination is still far away. -- Paniq 16:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If Hagen Kleinert's autobiography gets thru I ahve no problem with this. It might need cleanup, but Keep. Notability is clearly established in terms of awards etc.--ZayZayEM 09:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Paniq +"Leonard Ritter" isn't a good metric for someone known in his field of notability almost exclusively as Paniq alone, and commercial album release does not appear to be a good notability bar for the demoscene now and, with the shape of commercial album releases, possibly ever. I've edited the article a bit to remove the one glaring vanity-like element (the link to homo universalis), and to otherwise conform with my best understanding of Wikistyle. Samaritan 23:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - verifiable, passes the Pokemon Comparative Notability Test (just) - David Gerard 00:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Has released multiple albums and won multiple awards among other things. Obviously notable.--Centauri 00:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I think it's interesting how Paniq's being compared to Jason Kottke. It seems like those who voted Keep in the Kottke VfD discussion were being directed to this article. Is this normal Wikipedia practice for users to solicit practically everyone that might possibly support their position? Or is this just an attempt to make it seem that more people would be interested in having the article in the encyclopedia? That being said, by looking at the article, it seems that Paniq is notable in his field; however, the question is, is the field itself notable enough for his inclusion? Blogging is notable enough, IMHO, and Kottke is a top blogger. And that's why I voted Keep for Kottke. German demoscene? Personally, I'd classify it at about the same level as the Canadian trivia scene -- and I had an article about myself run through VfD and deleted. Delete. --OntarioQuizzer 01:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You misunderstand what the "demoscene" is, its not a strictly german thing, or a swedish thing, or an american thing. It is a global computer hobby subculture, much as Dungeons & Dragons is a fantasy hobby subculture, both involve some level of creativity and artistic talent. If it were strictly a cultural thing I would likely join you in a delete vote, but its not and I urge you to reconsider your vote. ALKIVAR™ 02:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If the subject has an article (Demoscene) its main figures should be wiki-worthy too.--ZayZayEM 06:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Trivia is a global subculture. SmartAsk. Reach For The Top. Quizbowl. By the extension of that logic, the top people in these areas should have pages. But they don't. Ken Jennings only has a page because he has managed to transcend the genre. I stand by my vote. --OntarioQuizzer 08:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Farbrausch have their own article, as they should, as wiki-worthy main figures of the genre. However, when even THAT doesn't establish that paniq has any individual importance, I'm going to remain unconvinced. The bare truth is that outside of Farbrausch, there has been no evidence presented that paniq has done anything to warrant a separate entry for himself. I'm sorry, it's nothing personal, but that's how it stands. Everyone knows Google hits can be manipulated either way to promote or upset popularity, but at the base level, on the most basic of searches, paniq turns up 3,200 hits from only 80 sites. In my mind, that's not diverse enough, especially for a topic based around computers. --Lawlore 11:01, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Trivia is a global subculture. SmartAsk. Reach For The Top. Quizbowl. By the extension of that logic, the top people in these areas should have pages. But they don't. Ken Jennings only has a page because he has managed to transcend the genre. I stand by my vote. --OntarioQuizzer 08:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If the subject has an article (Demoscene) its main figures should be wiki-worthy too.--ZayZayEM 06:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "Blogging is notable enough", but the demoscene is not... also, interesting view on the notability of the german scene (you might want to wonder why the "non-notable german demoscene" gets slashdotted every once in a while)... maybe you shouldn't confuse "not notable" with "I don't bother to care"... // Gargaj 08:04, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
- Userfy or delete. —Ben Brockert (42) 01:18, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. This has been one of the best debates on a VfD that i've seen in my brief time at Wikipedia. I've been re-reading it all, plus the new entries -- and I have been tempted to change my delete vote above, just based on the amount of discussion it has generated. Plus I've come to like paniq! Having spent more time checking out the Wiki entries around the subject and checking out a few web sites, however, I realise that my emotional side is predominating here, so I have to stay with my original vote HowardB 14:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No. I don't HAVE to do that at all. When I think about many of the entries I have seen that I have not yet summoned up the energy to put up for VfD, this one has far more justification for being there. Maybe someone in 5 years will successfully VfD it because paniq sinks into obscurity without leaving a true heritage, (I hope not, paniq ) but until then I'm going to change my vote to Keep, Keep (the two of them because I don't know how to strike thu my old vote, and don't have the time right now to find out, so one delete plus two keeps should equal a YES HowardB 14:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I promise howard, I wont disappear. I have some plans that should make a lot of people happy, once those have reached the neccessary amount of realization, and those will be really worth a wikipedia entry. There is virtually no chance that I might fail because the idea is so good, nobody understands it fully, not even myself ;) -- Paniq 22:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That also isn't very flattering to paniq, is it: "OK, paniq, you're in. We decided you have to be more notable than Machinedramon". That seems like a race to the bottom. It is saying that since we don't seem to be able stop non-notable subjects from becoming Wikipedia articles as fast as they come in, we might as well give up. Let's put up a big sign: "Write an article on anything you want. Who are we to tell you what might be important? As long as your article is factual and not too opinionated and it looks like someone, somewhere, might want to read it, its fine by us. But if the subject is youself, get your friend to write it for you, pal, because we don't want vanity." --BM 19:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You're finally starting to get it! Almost, but not quite. Seriously, who are you to tell me what is and is not important? Wikipedia: the home of group think. —RaD Man (talk) 19:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Welcome to Inclusionism! It may save Wikipedia. --Jscott 19:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I thought I was parodying it, guys. On Wikipedia, people can edit articles and if they write something that is not true, muddled, irrelevant, POV-pushing, etc, some other editor can delete or modify it. Within an article, the collective efforts of editors determine the final result, sometimes after a lot of wrangling. Above the level of an article, though, where you are deciding what articles should exist and how a large subject should be divided up between multiple articles, that changes dramatically. Anybody can create any article, and according to your logic, nobody else can question it, provided the new article doesn't fall into a small number of categories of recognized badness. If we allow anyone to edit at the infra-article level, why do we have such different rules to edit at the supra-article level? That is what VfD is basically about: editing the Wikipedia at the supra-article level. If I put a new section into an article about a sub-topic that the other editors think is irrelevant or not sigificant enough to take up the space, they will delete it. But if I put the material into a separate article, nobody can touch it. It can only be cleaned up. The more extreme inclusionists seem to be saying that nobody should try to edit at the supra-article level, that an article-creation decision should never be challenged and the structure of the Wikipedia should not be planned and should simply left to accretion, as article-creators come along at random and create new articles. By that view, except in the rare cases of vanity, original research, and patent nonsense, any attempt to undo an article-creation decision is "deletionism" and is beyond the pale. If that view prevails, the result will be that Wikipedia will have no coherent structure above the article level. --BM 23:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- keep. ComCat 15:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I fail to understand what harm exists in keeping this article, especially when the alternative is necessarily harmful if we are wrong: deleting a possibily good article. People who do not want to know about this person/topic won't find it. People who do will find it. --ShaunMacPherson 18:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- A pretty clear keep. Good to see that the deletionists are still listing stuff on VfD just because they haven't heard of it/them ;) Dan100 19:12, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry to say it, but delete or userfy. The demoscene is a hobby, paniq is just a hobby musician. A demoscener who for example later have worked in (commercial) game development would fit nicely on Wikipedia, i could name some notable demosceners but they are not many. paniq hasn't done anything notable yet, getting some good results at German demoparties isn't enough. bbx 04:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Agree. Other projects im working on have not yet matured to be seen as fully notable. Thats why I said that I think the article is rather early. -- Paniq 10:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- STRONG DELETE I'm sick and tired of this being compared to Kottke. ral315 15:47, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't really see wht the deleters have against it from a Wikipedia point of view (except the usual bleat of “I haven't heard of him, I'm not interested, so he's not notable”. If only we could use notability as a criterion for editorship...). I find the topic utterly uninteresting, but so what? In the context of an encyclopaedia which finds room for the census details for every U.S. village and city suburb, this person seems to be positively stellar. Far more people are likely to look up Paniq than Royal Oak, Michigan or Merton, Wisconsin. Why should the bar for people be set so much higher than the bar for places? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Everything that Μελ Ετητης has said. Keep Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)
- Keep. Notability of person in question has been established. No reason to not vote keep. =) --Andylkl 19:10, Feb 11, 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.
Advertising. sjorford:// 18:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
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 delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Text: "The Eaglone Security Community, or ESC, is a secret group driven underground working for few men (or one man), believed to be in Saudi Arabia. It is widely thought that some conspiracies were initiated by the ESC to serve its interest." Creator Eagleamn says in edit summary that they will expand later. "Eaglone Security Community", or substituting Eagleone or Eagle One, all get zero web hits, +ESC +security +"Saudi Arabia" nothing I can see related. The one incoming link was just added to ESC. I don't think this will be verifiable. Samaritan 19:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as currently written; conspiracies without evidence are urban legends Courtland 19:06, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
- Let it not be said that Wikipedia was what blew their cover. Delete. Uncle G 19:32, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
- Delete, "secret groups" are by nature unencyclopedic since any information about them is unverifiable. Otherwise they aren't secret groups. — Ливай | ☺ 20:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Too secret for Wikipedia. Carrp | Talk 20:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. secret organizations should stay that way. nn. RJFJR 21:06, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, no evidence of encyclopedic content here. Wyss 21:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, article does not establish notability, possible hoax. Megan1967 03:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No reference - or likelihood there will be one from a reputable source. Vague conspiracy theory that seems untraceable even as an urban myth on the web. Grutness|hello?
06:41, 10 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.